Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Collect (talk | contribs) at 12:30, 9 November 2012 (rm detritus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Well-meaning editors: Please do not edit comments from others on this page. Thank 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.

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).

Sound "collegial to you?

Some of my essays:

WP:False consensus

WP:KNOW

WP:Advocacy articles

WP:PIECE

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

Happy Collect's Day!

User:Collect has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Collect's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Collect! Peace, Rlevse 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And sincere best regards and thanks to you! Collect (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Michael A. Bellesiles

Your recent edits to this article are not helpful. Some editors, including me, are trying to find a balance between including the 16K+ of stuff from the book article, and failing to mention Bellesiles' fraudulent scholarship in writing the book. Others seem to be trying to sabotage that effort, or are at least avoiding rational discussion of it. Lou Sander (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note my position that the section should be a summary of the article, and not the entire article. And note that, to that end, I presented a limited summary thereof. As called for by policy and guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Not your best work, IMHO. Lou Sander (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

But far superior to adding an entire subarticle into the article, for sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Lou, please point out any recent versions of the article which "fail to mention Bellesiles' fraudulent scholarship". As best I can tell, all recent revisions prominently mention the Armed America incident. All editors seem to be trying to find the balance you're describing, and it's not helpful to pretend otherwise for rhetorical purposes. MastCell  22:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Lou won't be with us anymore... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

C'est dommage. Collect (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth

You make good points, I follow your reasoning, and I think you're smart. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion.Jasonnewyork (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - Kind words work better than almost anything else. Collect (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

College cheerleaders

You think this category is trivial? Hard to believe. I've nominated it for deletion. No outcome would surprise me, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

<g> And it has now been repopulated with a slew of Republican politicians -- do ya think that is a random occurrence? Collect (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to comment. Too many conflicting stereotypes. I had no idea it was a "manly" (the cited source in the Bush article) pursuit. I'm gonna have to reevaluate my whole view of cheerleading.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The WP guideline of making categories says that the category must be a rational linkage <g> which I consider a very weak point for this category utterly. Collect (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your concerns about Jon Wiener

Wondering what you would like to do here and how I might help.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - all that really is needed is a person to check out his edits and to suggest that his "there is no problem" position might not work in his favour. It is far from the worst puff pastry of an article on WP, but I think having a second voice in his ear might work wonders (fingers crossed). Collect (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what. I'll put it on my to-do list; what I was thinking about doing was revamping the article, doing newspaper/media sweeps with his name (probably law-related publications), possibly rewriting the lede, cutting out dubious sources, and posting it into a sandbox for your perusal first; right now I am doing other stuff, so it may be a few days, okay?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No need to get my approval <g> the aim is to make good articles without having either puffery nor denigration of people. Collect (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Corrections Corporation of America

The prison riot yesterday didn't say anything about CCA? That's a bit like contending the sinking of the Titanic didn't have anything to do with the White Star Line or an iceberg or the Atlantic Ocean. Activist (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The only connection was running the place - which is rather insufficient for any implication about a corporation which was not in any way implicated otherwise in the "riot." The White Star management, on the other hand, was implicated in the poor decisions about the Titanic - so thanks for showing where you are coming from. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No implication was intended and no implication was made. The edit simply noted a workplace death under exotic circumstances (riot) of one of the company's employees. This is an established and undisputed fact. The edit made no judgment on the competency or efficacy of CCA in operating this facility. BlueSalix (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

CCA has had riots in its institutions on a regular basis. There have been reports regarding them made by contracting and hosting states and monitors. These included, for instance, reports on riots in May and July and September of 2004 in Watonga, Oklahoma, Crowley County, Colorado and Beattyville, Kentucky, that excoriated the corporation and mentioned similar specific shortcomings that existed in all three prisons. There was another riot in Tallahatchie, Mississippi the day after the 2004 Crowley riot but I don't know if the sending state, Colorado, webposted a report. The Crowley report was almost 200 pages. The extensive Watonga report was posted by the sending state, Arizona. Hawai'i has written numerous reports about riots and other incidents in CCA's Arizona prisons. I'm posting this to the Noticeboard. I'm not able to notify user BlueSalix as he or she doesn't have a User page. If you would like to add material on the riots I've cited, they and many others should be fairly easy to find on the Internet. Activist (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20120522/NEWS/205220320/Former-prison-worker-recalls-unsafe-situation Activist (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Collect; Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Corrections Corporation of America has been opened. Activist claims that the above posting consists of notifying you of a Dispute that has been Administratively opened.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Your deletion of another user's edits

With this edit you deleted the previous edits of another user (Unscintillating): Please could you clean up this error, undoubtedly accidental? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Third time it has happened to me - and about fifteeneth time I have seen it - likely due to server miscomunications for "edit conflict". Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Invitation

Out of a sheer penchant for drivel, I've penned an essay on BLP noteworthiness. I don't know what I expect from having done so. But I thought I'd share it with you because you're a regular BLP contributor, and I value your understanding of current policy and guidelines, as well as you opinion of if and how they might be improved. If you don't have time or interest, no hard feelings. In fact, if you think I'm being wrongheaded, please leave a comment to that effect. All the best. JFHJr (㊟) 10:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for being on the case, Collect. Drmies (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

DDR / SED / Terminology

I hope my contributions helped your thinking on these issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber

Dear moderators,

I am writing you in response to the warning you have posted on my talk page dated May 29, 2012, and regarding my contributions to the article "Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber".

Kindly note the following:

• As I have read many articles in the media on Mr. Al Jaber, I was struck by the unrepresentative content on the individual in Misplaced Pages and on the differences in content between the German and English versions.
• I have bought the book entitled “Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber - High Quality content by Misplaced Pages articles” by Frederic P Miller, Agnes F Vandome and John McBrewster – Published by Alphascript publishing, 2011 (ISBN: 6135590138, EAN: 9786135590135, http://www.valorebooks.com/textbooks/mohamed-bin-issa-al-jaber/9786135590135 - Price: Euro 35), and I was also struck by its lack of accurate information.
• Accordingly, I have completed the article with sourced and reliable information that refer to the professional track record of this public international figure that is Mr. Al Jaber.
• And as you can see when referring to the sources, the media coverage on the individual is sometimes negative.
• Please also note that I have kept and added positive references regarding Mr. Al Jaber’s track record (such as Forbes mentions, philanthropy, education, awards, etc.).
• Furthermore, please note that I have also referred to the Misplaced Pages page in German that is very well sourced.

Awaiting for you kind reply,

Best regards,

--Oil.sharon (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles are never "reliable sources" for Misplaced Pages articles. Collect (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Collect. Yep that's about a comment I made on his talkpage. I'll reply to him there later today saying that & the rest. Cheers, --92.6.202.54 (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for having brought you into the stupid mess at WQA

I just want to apologize for bringing you to WQA. I thought the WQA volunteers could have helped you guys find a way to have more peaceful disagreements. But the incompetent mudslinging there by Writegeist has ruined it. I wanted to help you guys out, my apologies for failing. I will try to see if the other users there can give you tips to avoid confrontations.--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If you wish more info, drop me an email. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

re this edit

I really agree with you that national identity should be part of this rule. I'm a little worried though that the more we add, the harder it will be to get consensus on this rule change...... Anyway, let's leave it in for now and possibly remove it if it looks like it will cause a great deal of contention. NickCT (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me -- considering the "Israeli/Palestinian" mess for some articles - let the person determine what they are. But let's see how others feel. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Chip Rogers

Not sure why you consider my edit a revert back to a version marked as a WP:BLP violation. I added extensive sourcing and also added in Rogers' defense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techfan1972 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a matter that the sources used do not meet the requirements of WP:BLP. I suggest you read WP:BLP to acquaint yourself with the policies and requirements of Misplaced Pages when dealing with biographies of living persons. Meanwhile, please be well advised that continued insertion of material conttrary to policy is heavily frowned upon and may lead to administrative action regarding your account. Collect (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please enlighten me as to what you believe does not meet the sourcing requirements of WP:BLP. To refresh your memory, the guidelines state that edits "must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source." You clearly must not be from Georgia, because the main story referred to in the edits was published on Atlanta Unfilitered, a highly respected news website that is run by a longtime editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (the biggest newspaper in the state). Furthermore, the article contains primary source documents, including video and court records. And in case you still weren't convinced, the story was picked up and verified by Atlanta's ABC affiliate, Atlanta's Fox affiliate, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Associated Press, and several local papers. Rogers responded directly to the stories from each of these outlets, including Atlanta Unfiltered. So to summarize, please explain to me how you think that the edits in question may be good enough information for literally every reputable news outlet in the state of Georgia, but not Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techfan1972 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

When you read WP:BLP and WP:RS please note that Misplaced Pages does not use or allow "primary sources and court records." On addition, blogs are also specifically disallowed unless under the direct control of a reliable source known for fact-checking. Lastly - Misplaced Pages is not the place to do campaign work during political silly season. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Then just use the ABC, FOX, AJC, and AP reports. What makes you the judge and jury of what news articles get to be kept out of an article because they aren't flattering for the subject. If multiple TV stations and newspapers are reporting it, it's news, end of story. You're the one acting political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techfan1972 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to me to "fix" edits which violate Misplaced Pages policies. And Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper - it uses material of encyclopedic value with claims backed by reliable sources as stated in policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You lose. Blow me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techfan1972 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Report that diff you showed me to IRWolfie-'s administrator noticeboard report

Reporting that to me isn't going to help with anything, I advice you to place it on IRWolfie-'s administrator noticeboard report. It demonstrates Writegeist's completely uncivil, cynical, and disruptive behaviour, and that he holds the WQA volunteer IRWolfie- in contempt and that he holds the whole WQA in contempt as a "dramaboard", odd that he volunteers for something he hates.--R-41 (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I know - see also WP:Mutual admiration society if you wish my "take" on it. At some point, it will be a teensy bit obvious to a lot of others, I hope. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC) w -

Rue Cardinale

It may be worth noting that Mathsci is framing his content dispute with Nyttend in terms of removing material by a banned editor. In fact, Mathsci has been edit warring to remove well-sourced material by User:Silver starfish, who has not been shown to be banned. In fact, no checkuser was run on Silver Starfish because do not see enough evidence to connect them to Echigo Mole. Rather revealingly, that comment goes onto say Those accounts did not come up in my check of Rita Mordio or Thrapostulator. So in fact, Silver Starfish and the rest of the Guozbongleur group are not Echigo Mole. In other words, the weight of evidence was against Mathsci's assertion before the checkuser was run, and afterwards it was even more, even conclusively, so. Undeterred by these results, which he is now attempting to deny , Mathsci is determined to have Silver Starfish declared a banned user in order to win his content disupte with User:Nyttend at Rue Cardinale (which he is now disrupting AN with). 94.197.236.96 (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I note that you may be acting for a banned user, and assign your position the weight it merits only. Collect (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

murder of lin jun

hello. the retitling discussion seems to have been archived. presumably the discussion is over. -badmachine 12:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And note that creating a content fork does not work. I supported renaming, I do not support forking on Misplaced Pages. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

i know you supported it. thank you for your level headedness. :) -badmachine 12:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The requested move to Murder of Lin Jun was archived by a robot in error. It is still active, as we've only known the victim's name since June 1 (the move was requested in response to user:Tokyogirl79's proposal on Talk:Luka Magnotta which started at "Hey all, we have an ID on the Asian man that had been killed. It's Lin Jun, a 33 year old Chinese man. Tokyogirl79 04:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)") and the discussion runs for a full week. The soonest this can be closed, even if a consensus is reached, is therefore June 8 (one week of discussion). Unfortunate that this was archived while still active (the 'bot is only supposed to archive threads which have gone a minimum number of days without an edit, not sure what went wrong) but this is still under discussion with no consensus. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sean Sherlock

Hi, Please give reasons for removing expenses and salary data from 'Deputies 2008 Salary, Allowances and expenses payments made to members 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2008' and corresponding 2007 Irish state documentation released as pubic data under Irish Freedom of Information Legislation from this article?

It is

a)Pertinent b)Sourced and verifiable It is not 'undue' as you state or in any manner speculative but directly cited from public domain information released by the Irish government (document title above)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.61.99 (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedoia deprecates material from "primary sources". If you wish the material in the biography of a living person (WP:BLP), you should find a WP:RS source for the claims made. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources are not prohibited per se by WP:RS, but it is advisable to avoid relying entirely on one primary source in order to avoid bias, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

They are discouraged, and since there is no particular rationale for the use of that source, I am of the opinion that it does not belong in the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the data has an excellent primary source - the Irish Goverment itself (the data is available relating to salaries and expenses for all Irish Politicians. This issue of the primary source is not really debatable.

As regards whether it is appropriate - clearly factual data without opinion offered on it relating to the subject without opinion or suggestion is relevent.

I suggest that it would be appropriate that it be added for all Irish politicians as it is information that has an irrefutable source, is entirely relevent and is in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.61.99 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

In which case, start an RfC on the idea - unless you get consensus for it, it will not fly. Collect (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Actual COMMON usage

Pedants claim limiting usage the way you've suggested would render a more, sniff, prestigious dialect but actual practice (see Descriptive grammar) countervails any suggestion such a usage is universally maligned.

1. From that unreliable source (who shall remain nameless--for now):

   Some bookshave one or more eponymous principal characters: Robinson Crusoe, Moll Flanders, Emma, the Harry Potter series, The Legend of Zelda series, I Love Lucy, for example.---WIKIPEDIA: "Eponymous"

2. Prestigious (if, obv., "descriptive"-) lexicographers at American Heritage:

   "...deriving from an existing name or word: 'Programs such as He-Man and Masters of the Universe ... were all created with the explicit purpose of selling the eponymous toys to children' (Susan Gregory Thomas)."

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Smile

Statυs (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Repeated forking of the Luka Magnotta article

It appears that, once again, someone has attempted to fork the Luka Magnotta article with the recreation of Murder of Lin Jun. I'm opposed to this for several reasons: #1, We have a clear majority of Oppose votes to move the article there, and #2, having two articles covering much of the same information means that, if/when we reach a final consensus with regards to whether we should keep the article here, there, or "split" them, people's work and research will be spread around over two articles, requiring a complete rewrite. It's not a smart idea to take it upon oneself to begin spreading information out over two articles without clear consensus IMO. Would you please offer your opinion on the discussion at Talk:Luka Magnotta? Thank you. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVASS and try to use neutrally worded notifications - I have evinced some opinions, but you will find others may well decide to point out CANVASS in their posts, which means my participation might be discounted there  :(. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

A/n/i courtesy notice

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Collect --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Dollar short - already responded to. Cheers - but your attempt to rehash what others already opined on at the template deletion discussion etc. for Romney is all too evident. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read wp:EDIT. Whereas this page indicates that sourcing issues can reasonably be template:Fact-tagged, it plainly says only to delete controversial assertions. Nothing in the chart you removed is in dispute.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP unsourced or poorly sourced claims in any article subject to WP:BLP should be removed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Mathsci and Echigo Mole 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—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keystone Crow (talk • contribs) 04:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Noting that any such case was elided by ArbCom as being filed by a sock and this notification is non-utile. Collect (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ace work

Thank you for applying the broom to the Craig Thomson affair article. Well done. Best wishes. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Craig Thomson affair for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Craig Thomson affair is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Craig Thomson affair 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 template from the top of the article. - Jorgath (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

.

Warning

Please be aware that you are a on bright line of WP:3RR yourself, and also in violation of WP:TEAM. (Igny (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

Oh? I suggest you file then - your tendentiousness, personal attacks, etc. should be fun as WP:BOOMERANG <g> Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Billie Jean King

Hi Collect, I notice that you were active on the Bill Jean King article in 2009. It has some major unresolved problems and I'm trying to address and correct them. If you have any input, I've started a few threads on the talk page. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

<g>??-2012-06-20T19:03:00.000Z">

Hey, Collect, I've noticed you write <g> in your posts on occasion, and I was just curious what it meant; I've never seen it before. if you were wondering, got here from stalking User talk:Drmies, and didn't want to interrupt the un-fun conversation there Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)?"> ?">

It just shows my age - I have been online for three decades now - and <g> was the old shorthand for "grin". <+g> was "evil grin" (meaningful only if you played D&D). Collect (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense; thanks again! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Health Services Union expenses affair

Please point out the text in WP:UNDUE that supports your assertion that "UNDUE applies to talk pages as well as to articles". Thank you. --NeilN 15:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact, all of WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles. Where UNDUE comes in is that the lengthy list of sins of a living person is contrary to WP:BLP and this particular article ran well afoul of WP:BLP before its renaming. The material did not contain any balancing material as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The material is a summary of the findings of the FWA report, one of the major components of the article. It was collapsed and added there for discussion. If editors must find "balancing" material before adding content to talk pages, then I suggest you make a proposal at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons to make that explicit. --NeilN 16:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Read the article history and AfD, as well as the multiple discussions at WP:BLP/N on the prior article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the article's history, thanks. --NeilN 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Right about now I think you could use the caffeine – Lionel 11:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your contribution to the article NXIVM. Please do have a look at the available WP:RSes on which the article may be based. Would you say the article reflect them particularly well? Chrisrus (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Before you came along

I was doing there things like that or that for months. So don't interfere.

Alos people generally believe he WAS caught masturbating, and here the article gets things straight. --Niemti (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

What you "believe" has nothing to do with what WP:BLP requires. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not what I believe, it's what "people generally" believe. Learn to read, and stop removing the well-sourced NPOV content respresenting everyone involved and exactly what they said regarding the incident. --Niemti (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:BLPCRIME etc. NPOV is not the only criterion for biographies of living persons. Collect (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Political activities of the Koch family. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Repeated violations of WP:BLP may and must be removed. Cheers. And see WP:DNTTR please. Collect (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets 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—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You are involved in a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard

Here is the link: --R-41 (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: TFD

I am not meaning this as a joke or an insult, Again I am not meaning this as a joke or insult, I am serious. I need advice on what to do.--R-41 (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We could have an RFC/U -- but unless they are "orchestrated" they tend to go nowhere. I was victim of an "orchestrated" one with 14 people CANVASSed for it. I tend to think Wikiprocesses do not work really well <g>. TFD also asserts that the Swedish Social Democarats are not "liberal", that Ken Livingstone is not on the left, etc. Bide your time - I suspect we are not the only ones who have noted his idiosyncratic attitude towards articles. Cheers. And my email link works. Collect (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the user Writegeist is Wikihounding either you or me.

The user Writegeist has looked into the edits I made on your talk page. I admittingly made a rather crude comment about TFD, and I have sent an apology to TFD for it. You deleted the part of it that you thought was improper for being on a talk page, but Writegeist has been looking into your diff record to find the comment I said. Since Writegeist has been inactive on both your talk page and my talk page, I am very certain that Writegeist is Wikihounding either you or me. I have reported Writegeist for Wikihounding here: . I would appreciate hearing your view on this matter.--R-41 (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Writegeist has stalked me for more than three years (a very large part of his UT page is a colloquy to which he adds his own interpolations! - totalling over 3500 words which has now been there for more than three years ) - and has routinely made snide asides about me to another editor who does the same. The odds of Writegeist showing up on any noticeboard just to contradict me is about 75% at this point <g> and I view him as one of those gnats which always get in through the screens. Odds of him posting again on my page approach 101% now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you address this to the noticeboard at my report on Writegeist I have made here: . Wikihounding is a very serious and malicious violation of Misplaced Pages policy, and if Writegeist is doing that to you, that needs to be stopped.--R-41 (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

He has done it for more than three years - and seems blessed with a Cloak of Invisibility when needed. Cheers - and I have addressed the issue of his single-mindedness (or less). Collect (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Feedback requested for article on Daily Mail: Quotation from Lord Rothermere's "Youth Triumphant"

Hi Collect,

I would like to discuss the reason for excluding the quotation from Lord Rothermere's Youth Triumphant editorial and have outlined my justification here. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Thanks,

— Posted by Luke Goodsell, 08:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinions about people stated as "fact"

I saw your query about this on the BLP talk page. You may want to use a source from a recent edit I made in Katherine Ann Power. The first edit I did on July 17. The statement was sourced to a POV website which had no citations. It had one quote from a reliable source and based the whole 'essay' on other unsourced facts. "I place before the reader certain facts relevant to forming a judgement" is a statement made early in the text.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I rather think you found a red flag <g>. Collect (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I also added another example to your thread. The wp article about that source has a section that mentions its credibility. The New York Post.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Evanh2008 03:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Collect, thanks for calling to our attention the broken reference on our List of Notable Freemasons page. It appears the cite source altered their link formats to several of their pages. Additional sources, for Charles Lindbergh and others have been updated. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

started a WQA

I actually find that an editor calling me a "Holocaust denier" and "Neo-Nazi" or the like is sufficient to go to WQA for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sowell

(personsl attack removed by Collect) -- Scjessey (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion at BLP/N is very clear and fails to support your position. Your accusation of lies' I suggest you redact, as that is a personal attack. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Now at WP:WQA Collect (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Thingian Fooians

To be fair, articles which go into the minutiae of Thingian Fooians seem to me to be bizarre uses of Misplaced Pages anyway. The idea of a list of LGBT Jews is as bizarre a list as one of left handed dwarves. Rather than single out one entry, why not look at them all, for they are, surely, all unsuitable to be here? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have Quest on my watchlist - and "lo alecha hamlacha ligmor" applies. Collect (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, I'm afraid. Would you mind translating and clarifying? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"It is not up to us to finish the task, but we are not to shirk from the task." Collect (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It sounds like a proverb with many potential interpretations depending on the viewpoint of the reader, though. I still have grave doubts about intersections of Thingian Fooians but two and a half AfDs have chosen to keep this particular article, thus again showing the interesting academic exercise that the alleged wisdom of crowds turns out to be. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The current mood at BLP/N is far more ant-categorization of people then was the case two years ago. Collect (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps it is time for this bizarre intersection list article to be sacrificed on the altar of common sense. My view is simple. If it is valid for it to exist, which I doubt, then it should be complete. I do not, however, think it should exist. But I see the overall banality of the lowest common denominator effect of the wisdom of crowds as something that will insist it be kept. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Just be glad we are not at Commons <g> Collect (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This may be a discussion that you wish to add value to. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not at all surprised with the direction the discussion is taking. We now have the rhetoric from the "How dare you criticise my oppressed minority" camps who speak without necessarily understanding the true topic at hand. They fail to see that no-one is criticising their oppressed minority. This is the "beauty of WIkipedia", that the lunatics run the asylum. I speak as a lunatic. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And I as a heretic <g>. Ever read Poe's "System of Dr. Tarr and Prof. Fether"? Collect (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No, but it sounds just the ticket! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

pink slime

I don't own the entry at pink slime, it has been peer reviewed, and whether I created it or not does not effect the ruthless deletion process and strict editorial guidelines of wiktionary. The idiomatic compound pink slime meets the guidelines there and is not a neologism nor a protologism, it is the correct scholarly term for this product.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You created the entry on Wiktionary. You repeatedly pushed the entry on Wiktionary. You then cite the entry as being the reason it should be used on Misplaced Pages. That is evident. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of my edits

Could you please not misrepresent my edits as you did here. You represent that I stated "4RR in under 24 hours is a clear and absolute bright line violation". In fact I was agreeing that an editor who had made fewer than 4 reverts in 24 hours could still be considered to be edit-warring because "the edits do not have to be the same to break the rule and 4 reverts within 24 hours is not the absolute rule". TFD (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not think I misrepresented your edit "4 reverts within 24 hours is not the absolute rule" as I was simply elucidating my earlier comments where I said the 4RR was in under 24 hrs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You had written "4RR in 24 hours and 11 minutes is generally considered passing the line." TFD (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually - the 11 minutes is usually considered as breaking the line - one is not supposed to be watching a stopwatch to then aver one was not violating the EW rules. Cheers. Note that I also fixed the time on the complaint to show the lower elapsed time as well. Collect (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

IOW "4 reverts within 24 hours is not the absolute rule", 24 hr 11 min. "is usually considered as breaking the line". TFD (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I would not argue on that - I find the clarification works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Simon Walsh

Am not entirely happy with POTW's arguments on that. He appears to be using the (incredibly minor) notability of the subjects career/accomplishments to justify (and avoid BLP1E arguments) including the details of his (acquitted) court case. Either he is notable for the court case, in which case BLP1E should apply, or he is not notable for the court case, in which case accusations of a (low-profile) crime (which he was acquitted from) shouldnt be included. I am tempted to just remove the section entirely, but at that point the article is basically a stub on someone who hasnt really done anything of note. Your thoughts? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comments on improving the Rush Limbaugh - Sandra Fluke Controversy article on the Fluke AfD

Hi, Collect; Just FYI, I've put my outline of what needs to be done on the Talk:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy article page; you commented on some aspect of the need for improvement on that page on the Fluke AfD, thought you might take a look; it is due to come off protection tomorrow (though it might be a good idea that it NOT yet, until issues are discussed)209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You are being discussed

At ANI. Also one of your comments at AN3 has been hatted as a "Personal attack." – Sir Lionel, EG 12:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP at Tea Party Movement

Hello, Collect. I see you've deleted the material on the grounds that we should set aside WP:BRD in favor of WP:BLP (your statement was "Let's observe WP:BLP for contentious claims about living persons first - which is an absolute requirement by policy".) What are the specific Biography of a Living Person policy problems you see with that content? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The claim that a specific living person made a specific post on a blog is a "contentious claim" aboiut that person, hence requires strong reliable sourcing for the specific claim about that person. Not just "well the blog has a post which has that name on it" since the blog is not a reliable source as to who any poster thereon is. Etc. Anything less than a strong source should be removed. In the case at hand, more than one of the claims appeared on their face to fail that test. Collect (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There was 10,000 characters worth of text you removed with your deletion. Which specific living person/incident are you referring to involving an unreliable blog post? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT, the section was replete with BLP problems - long passages are not immune to that finding. Including references to living persons making blog posts for which the blog is not actually a reliable source, and sources making claims about the motivations for such posts, claims based on anonymous sources ("A colleague who was accompanying Lewis said people in the crowd responded by saying “Kill the bill, then the n-word.”" is a claim from an anonymous source - and one which has, to date, not seen any strong sourcing). Claims made about people where only anecdotal and anonymous sources exist are not strong enough to go against WP:BLP. Etc. Collect (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I re-read the text in question, and do not see any WP:BLP violations. If there is one, surely you can specifically point it out and indicate the portion of WP:BLP it violates. Please provide a specific example. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Read again - and note 1. allegations by anonymous sources and 2. claims that acts by individuals are attributable to a group and 3. that posts in blogs are claimed as a matter of opinion to be attributable to a group and 4. that where there is a strong claim about acts of a group that strong sources are required by Misplaced Pages policy. That you saw none of these is remarkable indeed - much like Alice seeing No one on the road - it rakes tremendous vision to see No one. Collect (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing how those things apply to the material you removed in the context of WP:BLP. As you're a frequent contributor on WP:BLPN, I'll make a post there and ask if someone else can shed light on how the items you've stated above specifically apply to the deleted material in the context of BLP. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Re 'left wing terrorism'

Regarding your recent addition of material to the article, please see Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Attempted WP:BLP violation in our left-wing terrorism article AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Noted - also note that my edit was scrupoulous wrt BLP policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then defend it at WP:ANI. That is bullshit and you know it. Or have you found a source that supports the suspect being a leftist out to overthrow the capitalist system? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S: '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. Can I suggest you read our article on cognative dissonance? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy - I made no improper edit, nor did I allege anything - the claims are reliably sourced, and my edits specifically did not mention a specific person by name. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Utter bullshit - but I note you aren't trying to defend your ridiculous position at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You deleted material on the the specific basis of WP:BLP. I cured the edit's failings in that department. That you are being grumpy is part of your charm - but please recall that I have defended you on numerous occasions. Cheers and have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That's right. I deleted material on the basis of WP:BLP. More specifically, I deleted material that on the basis of no evidence whatsoever implied that an individual that hadn't been convicted of anything was a Marxist terrorist, out to overthrow the capitalist system. Or hadn't you noticed where this bit of ludicrous POV-pushing was going on? And if you claim to have "cured the edit's failings", why aren't you arguing that your edit should be restored? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Collect, were you aware that Communist regimes were socially conservative and saw homosexuality as caused by the decadence of capitalism? TFD (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually do not care -- I had thought the regimes most opposed to gays were in Africa or in the Muslim world. Russia post-WW II was opposed to abortion and homosexuality on a strictly pragmatic basis - Stalin sought repopulation of Russia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So why would you think that anyone opposed to the the FRC would be trying to set up a Communist state? It seems that the Communists and the FRC are soul-mates on these issues. From which blog are getting this analysis? TFD (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The FRC is hardly a soul-mate with communists (or Communists) WRT abortion (if I may chime in).108.18.174.123 (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)'As I never said any such thing, I wonder what you think you actually are trying to prove? Sp please stay off this page if you are going to accuse me of saying things I did not say -- it makes it hard to keep fictitious charges off this page when you add things I did not say, TFD. Really. Collect (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Misha B

Maybe I went too far, my approach was if the unproven publicly made accusation had to be included, then it should be balanced with the truth and witness accounts. I may have gone too far, esp with the Misha B quotes. I am happy to see its removal. A co-editor is questioning its removal though....and I fear that more bullish others will wake up.

It is also here Controversy allegationsI have edited it down but should it remain or be edited further.

Regards the talk page bully accusations, mostly about her early teens, what should I do, though if I do it I will be accused of bias. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Two quick comments

1. Saw on ANI that you watch the JB article - you're made of stronger stuff than I, and I for one admire your fortitude.
2. Saw your comment to JM on the Arb Request page - you may wish to add a blank line between your comment to me and your comment to him, as the two run together as currently formatted. KillerChihuahua 22:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Dang the editing system <g> Collect (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It's probably a conspiracy. ;-) KillerChihuahua 00:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You are a STAR!

I give out a lot of barnstars--this is the only one that is serialized.

		The Burkie Barnstar
		You are hereby awarded the Burkie (serial# 3) for your tireless and unwavering commitment to upholding Conservatism-related articles to the highest standard of excellence and quality. – Sir Lionel, EG 11:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Peter Jensen

Hi Collect. Significant and credible BLP concerns have been raised with respect to this article, which I'll not go into but I hope you'll take my word for it that they exist. In line with the general duty to write conservatively about living people, if you wish to provide sourcing for the article, particularly for information along the lines that you recently added, it would be useful to try to find sourcing that is authoritative and independent of the subject. This is not to criticise your recent edit, but to draw your attention to the fact that there are unusual circumstances. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We have reliable sources. Misplaced Pages uses Reliable Sources. The CBS, Toronto Star et all are Reliable Sources. The claim is not damaging to the person, and if OTRS removes the article - that is fine, I suppose. The person meets the notability guidelines by a mile. And note also that the laws of Canada do not apply here -- only the laws of the US and of Florida (assuming they did not move the WMF headquarters to CA) are of legal value. If the claim were "contentious" -- but the RS sources are within the past month. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. I should have known better. Cheers, Collect. Formerip (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For some reason "reely sekret" rationales do not impress me all that much. The curtain usually reveals not much. Collect (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Re User:Collect/Peter Jensen (trainer): I wasn't sure what you meant and, after checking, suppose that you may be confusing me with User:Wnt. Warden (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually not -- I find his interpretation of WP:BLP to be problematic at times, while you have contributed to many articles in need of improvement. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Naming Children in a BLP

I know you are quite knowlegable about BLP's. I've run across an article, a BLP, that includes the names of the persons children...in the body and the infobox, I think this information is un-necessary and, in a real world sense, may be hazardous to the children. Predators use a childs first name to gain trust and remove the fear of "stranger danger'. "He knows my name. He must be safe." Ive asked at the help desk and they referred me to the privacy threads at WP:BLP but there is no mention of this issue. Any thoughts? ```Buster Seven Talk 20:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the naming of minor children as a matter of principle - though some seem to think that if a tabloid publishes a fact it is fair game. Jimbo holds the same position, as do several other editors at BLP/N. If I see the BLP at BLP/N I shall surely keep this position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Your response is confusing in regards to Jimbo and other editors at BLP/N. Does (do) Jimbo (and the others) hold the same position as you? Or...do they hold the same position as the some who think its fair game if the childs name is in People magazine? You present two opposing possibilities and then claim that Jimbo agrees. Which one does he agree with? ```Buster Seven Talk 12:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think not -- Jimbo has made eminently clear his position about using tabloid claims in BLPs. And the claim "other places think nothing of violating the right to privacy for children" is not a strong reason for saying "therefore Misplaced Pages should say 'anything goes'". I thought I made it clear that minor children who are not otherwise notable in their own right generally should not be named in BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind! Jimbo may have made it clear, but you did not make clear what Jimbo had made clear. Your ability to confuse a simple request is expected. I should have asked elsewhere. Your incapacity to recognize an olive branch is not surprising.```Buster Seven Talk 16:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Eh? I tried to respond as clearly as possible -- indincating that I and Jimbo and many others agree on not using the names of minor children who are not otherwise notable in a BLP. How much clearly might I have been? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Statement A: I oppose the naming of minor children as a matter of principle
• Statement B: though some seem to think that if a tabloid publishes a fact it is fair game. (A contrary position to Statement A)
• Statement C: (The very next sentance) Jimbo holds the same position, as do several other editors at BLP/N.

Since A is followed by B, and B is followed by C, the common, logical interpretation is that C refers to B rather than A. But...I know that interpretation cannot be the case since Jimbo would not hold that position. When you say "Jimbo holds the same position" its logical to assume that "...holds the same position" means the one just preceeding it...which is Statement B. Not Statement A. If you had said, "Jimbo holds the same position as I do" there would have been no confusion. Anyway, I knew the answer before I asked it. It really was an attempt at communicating normally. Not that I want to chat or have tea. I just hate the thought of having an enemy in WikiWorld. But...alas...my branch has withered and died. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I said that some disagree with me. Seems that should have been clear enough. I then stated that Jimbo and others agree with my position. I have no "enemies" that I know of - at least none that I call "enemy" nor do I keep a "list of enemies." The "though some seem to think ..." was a parenthetical observation and not a separate statement. Consider "Red and green are seoarate colours -- though some appear to be colourblind" -- would you not see the reason for the parenthetical observation? Would you see that as meaning that Jimbo and others are colourblind? I would hope not! Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A picture for you!

I am not going to say exactly who/what the following reminds me of (hint: not you) but somehow it seems appropriate. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

PNAC

Let's review the edit: I had changed "an educational and political advocacy organization" description of PNAC into "a neo-conservative political advocacy organization". You then reverted because of "unsupported claim categorizing an organization". You've got to be kidding!

Let's review just from the Wiki PNAC: "co-founded ... by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership." Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity." The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War." So the co-founders are two of the more prominent self-described neo-conservatives and the stated policy positions are neo-conservative, but, somehow, the organization is not neo-conservative. Is this a joke? "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity" is precisely what neo-conservatism is! Every member of PNAC is routinely described as neo-conservative--including Perle, Gaffney, Wolfowitz, Schmitt, Rumsfeld and the founders Kagan and Kristol, who are the heart of the neo-conservative movement, which is an implementation of Straussian philosophy in foreign policy, characterized by several doctrines, two of which have been clearly identified in PNAC's own documents quoted above. PNAC is not dedicated to all neoconservative positions, but the entire goal of PNAC is a part of those positions.

Let's look from the other end, from Neoconservatism. "Among those who worked for Jackson were future neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Richard Perle. In the late 1970s neoconservative support moved to Ronald Reagan ..." Then, quoting Michael Lind, "The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists." That's three people that are directly mentioned as top members of PNAC--Kristol, Wolfowitz and Perle. A bit further, PNAC is directly mentioned as a "related organization": "On February 19, 1998, an open letter to President Clinton appeared, signed by dozens of pundits, many identified with neoconservatism and, later, related groups such as the PNAC, urging decisive action to remove Saddam from power."

Note that this is the background available just from reading Wiki. Looking at outside sources on foreign policy is even more direct on the relationship, although I don't want to spend the time searching for trivial information for a trivial fix. Your "correction" was based on the perception that the claim of association with neoconservatism is somehow disparaging. Neither the members nor I would look at it that way. Unless you're prepared to claim that an organization that was founded by top neoconservatives and had membership that was nearly entirely neoconservative is not a neoconservative organization, I suggest you undo your "correction". I will not engage in edit wars and will let you undo your own error. Alex.deWitte (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The rule is that claims must be directly supported by RS sources. In the case at hand, you did not so support your claim. Ot os clear that you are not doing so, but arguing that you "know" the "truth" - while you may be the world's greatest authority, that is not how Misplaced Pages works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This is why so many people hate Misplaced Pages as an inaccurate source on anything other than hard science. Your description is correct for factual information that is possibly in dispute. There is no dispute here--only ignorance. It has nothing to do with my expertise. OTOH, "educational" is lifted directly out of PNAC's own promotional literature. PNAC's "educational" component had been winning converts for neoconservatism. Why is "educational" preferred to "neoconservative"? Where is the citation? Do you expect every single word to be cited? And even when there are citations, independent sources are preferred over self-promotion pieces--that's also Wiki policy. Yet, you uncritically accept some words and not others. Please stop micromanaging and address substance. Alex.deWitte (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No -- it is the only way Misplaced Pages has of preventing really bad claims on a topic. Find reliable sources for the wording you want - the charter of an organization is reliable for what it views itself to be, for example. But insisting that you "know" what is the "truth" on a topic, even if you are the "world's greatest authority" generally will avail you not a bit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

TPM revert

I don't see the outrage over North8000's two reverts, that aside the reverts were done in response to his reverts and everyone at WP:EW/N will see that. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Your problem is the bright line rule. I take your post as a refusal to self-revert. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Charges

All I am reminded of is "I have a list" .... which is to say, absent any evidence you are willing to bring forth, you are willing to make charges about Misplaced Pages editors

I'm sorry, do you have me confused with someone else? I don't recall any such "charges". What I do recall saying is that we have no evidence that can be proven. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In which case you well ought to have said nothing at all. Evidence which is not presented, and may not even exist, has exactly zero weight in reasonable discourse. Collect (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't follow at all based on the discussion that took place. The question is whether the IRC logs are real or fake and whether the IRC channel exists or not. It seems almost impossible to have a discussion with you about anything. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

When allegations are made about an IRC channel which may or may not exist (and I assure you that I know nothing whatseover about any such channel, and I am not part of any Wikiproject), and the logs may or may not exist, and, if they exist, may or may not be genuine, I consider the entire matter so intrinsically speculative that anyone raising it falls in my esteem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

All I know is that this IP claimed there was a channel. I asked for evidence and I was sent several IRC logs, which could very well have been faked. I've also asked for evidence that such a channel exists and I have received none. If those facts and attempts to get to the bottom of it disturb you, then that's your problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

IOW, you gave credence to rumours. For some odd reason, I try not to do so. Cheers.Collect (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The complete opposite is true. I gave no credence to such rumors, and I did not forward the "evidence" to arbcom because it lacked any and all authenticity. Asking for evidence isn't giving credence to a rumor. It's doing the opposite. If no evidence is presented, then the rumor is clearly false. For some reason, you and I see the world very differently. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My theory is that the rumour should not be promoted in any way whatsoever when no solid basis exists. Asking a person "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is the classic example of such implicit rumour-mongering, and following that example is not, in my own personal opinion only, wise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with your interpretation. It was claimed that X exists. I asked, does x exist? If so, show me the evidence. Because there is no evidence, I can conclude that X does not exist. There's no leading question here at all. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Again -- if I saw such a rumour, I would not go about posting on noticeboards "Is this rumour true?" - unless I felt it was very solidly based, I would scrupulously ignore its existence entirely and utterly. YMMV. Collect (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. This "SkepticAnonymous" person appears to enjoy causing chaos like this. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to ignore the rumour when it can be dealt with; that only propagates it. The issue was dealt with head on by asking for the "logs" from the editor and forwarding them to arbcom; we now know the logs are false. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

About the "sanitisation" of the Dan Roodt article

In this edit you claim that that the statement in the article implied that "Roodt loves Hitler". I'm sorry but are you sure you really understand the English language fluently? The statement says he met with a Swedish organisation which is on record as admiring Hitler - the junp from that staement to an implication that Roodt loves Hitler is patently absurd. BTW Can you understand Afrikaans sources? I'm a bit concerned that we might be going too far to pander to the "concerns" of someone claiming (without any proof so far) to be Dan Roodt. Roger (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And the only reason for including "guilt by association" claims is not to follow WP:BLP -- it is not our function to show how evil a person is. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree that it is a "guilt by association" claim - Roodt met with a Swedish neo-nazi group - he didn't become a member of the group or in any other way associate with it - he just met them. Nowhere in the paragraph you removed is there any implication that Roodt himself is a neo-nazi or "loves Hitler". To make a "guilt by association" claim from the paragraph as it was written requires a very large assumption - and/or poor understanding of statement in fairly simple English. The people he met are neo-nazis - they proclaim it on their own website - it's not a "claim"/"implication"/"accusation" or even remotely disputable. I'm sorry but I'm of the opinion you are going too far in whitewashing (excuse the pun) the article. Roger (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is no reason to impute anything about Hitler to the living person, then that info is not relevant here - put it in the article on that organization, not on a person who simply meets with someone from that organization. That is what is called for by WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Collect, why can't we call people who claim to be nazis neo-nazis? Is it because they believe that they are the real malarkey mccoy and "neo" is abusive? TFD (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

People who self-desxribe as such can be called such. In the case at hand, the use of descriptors for the people he met was being used to indirectly ascribe a term to him which is not applied by reliable sources to him. It is exactly the same sort of problem as was found in McCarthyyism - where if a person met with Communists, that meant they were Communists. Of all people, I would have expected you to understand this sort of indirect connection is improper on Misplaced Pages. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

To draw a parallel with that example, it appears that the analogy is you don't want to describe the Communists as Communists. If someone has met a neo-nazi group, it doesn't make him a neo-nazi, but it also doesn't stop the neo-nazi group being a neo-nazi group. It's NPOV to describe a neo-nazi group as a neo-nazi group. The neo-nazi group is also described as neo-nazi on it's article page. There is no BLP violation. Your change also removed the name of the groups, so people can't even read about the neo-nazi group on the respective article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Icorrect. I suggest that where a person or group self-decribes as something, then we can use their self-description for matters of ideology, ehtnicity and religion. What I do not support is using Misplaced Pages's voice to describe people or groups as being anywhere on a problematic "political spectrum" as there is no accurate definition thereof covering all places and all times, and further that using opinion sources should always then be restricted to citing opinions as opinions, and not as "fact" in Misplaced Pages's voice. In the case at hand, a neo-nazi group so self-described can certainly be described on it's own page as "neo-nazi" but that does not mean "John Gnarph met with a neio-nazi group that admites Hitler" belongs in the article on "John Gnarph". In the case at hand, the intent was to use "guilt by association" un a political article - the sort of thing McCarthy was noted for, and for which I find no excuse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a false dilemma here, a reasonable balance would be: John Gnarph met with neo-nazi group X. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you read my edits? Did you see the one where I removed the "Hitler" stuff? Did you note that I specifically made the edit ? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That is what I am saying. The other unspoken option was to simply remove the mention about hitler and that is all. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Collect/Peter Jensen (trainer)

I've rewritten User:Collect/Peter Jensen (trainer). Best, Cunard (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the article would pass AfD now because the sources provide nontrivial coverage of the subject. Per the closing admin's comment, {{db-repost}} wouldn't apply to the article because of the substantial revisions. Would you consider returning it to the mainspace now? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it meets the rules -- you might wish to cut down the duplication of "sports pyschologist" uses to keep the ones who were really upset at it <g>, and the anme should be Peter Jensen (Canadian Olympic sports trainer) to also keep them from saying "it's illegal" <g>. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The seven references I provided should clearly demonstrate that reliable sources from Canada and other countries consider Jensen to be a "sports psychologist". As you noted on the talk page, Misplaced Pages follows what reliable sources say, not editors' interpretations of Canadian law. The main proponent of removing any mention of "sports psychologist", Hillabear10 (talk · contribs), has been blocked as a sockpuppet, so hopefully there will be no further trouble with this issue.

Thank you for moving the page to Peter Jensen (Canadian Olympic trainer). Best, Cunard (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Rilk Dacleu Idrac

Is the material that User:Svikalovitch re-added the same that you removed earlier? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Including the odd wording. Collect (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Joan Juliet Buck

I put back your deletion of the wowowow.com line. There were references earlier but they were taken out by malicious editors, and to not even CHECK the website that's listed? That's lazy and counts as a BLP violation.--Aichikawa (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope. "wowowow.com" is not a WP:RS for anything other than (at most) opinions cited as opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Dude, it was. If you go into the history, I had stuff from the New York Times. Please have some faith before you just dig in. Misplaced Pages's record with women is NOT the best.--Aichikawa (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I only see what is on the page when I edit - I do not look everything up in the NYT which is RS for such things as who started what. The problem is SPS sources is that sometimes what is claimed does not coincide with what third party sources say. Would you prefer that we accept such sources at face value? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal and editing of your comments on the NPOV board

Still has been removing and editing your comment on the NPOV board. Just thought you should know. I returned your comment twice, but have no interest in a 3RR for somthing so stupid. I reported to ANI as well. Arzel (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Problematic removal

I found your removal of material problematic, not only because you cut so much but because you claimed consensus. Please don't do that unless there's a straw poll or RfC that unambiguously supports your claim. Otherwise, it comes across as rather unpersuasive. Anyhow, I wanted to say this directly to you, because it's a behavior issue, not a content one. I'll discuss the content further on the article talk page. Hope this helps. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Your strong POV pushing is quite evident. I consider such posts as Every last one of these articles is about conservatism, so they're all the sorts of articles that I focus on. It's not always about you, Belchfire; I had these watchlisted. Please put aside the WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality and More commonly, these articles are informally WP:OWNed by WikiProject Conservatism, whose semi-overt goal is to increase conservative bias, , will not abide by such restrictions. You may as well community ban me. If you single me out while allowing Lionelt, Collect and Belchfire to insert conservative POV, I will not watch etc. One real problem you have is that I am not a member of any Wikiproject, and I am not even "conservative." I suggest you read my last 25,000 edits or so as an exercise ... especially noting all my edits on "liberal articles" where I use the exact same criteria as on every other article. Your posts here, when them make such attacks on any editor, are not welcome, and I specifically request you make no posts of that type on this page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Joan Buck

By wiping out repeatibly large sections with without discussion hoiw can you say it is wp:CONSENSUS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.214.66 (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BLP for the reasons why material which violates that policy is actually required to be removed, and note that the other editors hold the same position. WP:CONSENSUS requires that you get the others to hold your view on edits, and that you clearly do not have. Collect (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

He knows

And doesn't care. ViriiK (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Fatuous

I had to look that one up. Thanks for the vocab.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Christian_right". Thank you! EarwigBot  21:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your Support

	Defender of the 3RR Barnstar
	Thanks for helping to control Reverts by Anonymous IP Editors on SPLC.

Please let me know if I'm using this Barnstar incorrectly since I'm new to this Wiki:Love thing Yendor (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC).

Silly question

I noticed you used in one of your comments the term "google-farmed". Does this have a partciular meaning at Misplaced Pages-en? Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

People search for terms which they wish to find in any proximity at all -- Google gives a bunch of sites - and they choose ones which fit their needs - disregarding what the site actually says on the entire topic. Collect (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The only mediation I took part in fell apart over formatting and I just backed out. But the situation worked itself out through discussion (heated of course) on the talk page and time. Time heals all wounds.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you make of this?

Mass killings under capitalist regimes--it's a truly ludicrous article, with dead links to "The Maoist Rebel News" and message board postings for sources. It's essentially a giant collection of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR; its creator (AnieHall) implied in comments on the talk page of Mass killings under communist regimes that even she didn't really think it was a valid article but wanted to make a WP:POINT. The article's thesis, and AnieHall's openly stated belief, is that all nations are either communist or capitalist, and that all deaths from hunger or disease in all non-communist societies are "mass killings under capitalist regimes". The article links killings under colonialism and imperialism to capitalism, blames World War 2 on capitalism (even though the allied aggressors of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were both socialist states!), implies that India (a Cold War ally of the USSR) is an example of extreme laissez-faire, and even suggests that suicides of Foxconn workers in communist China are "mass killings under capitalist regimes". The lead effectively asserts that all "preventable deaths" everywhere are fair game! Given the methodology, one wonders why she stopped with an estimate of merely 1.6 billion mass killings under capitalism (you read that correctly)! In reality, "capitalism" is not a system of government; there are no capitalist "regimes"! There are only two sources that actually assert the existence of "mass killings" related to capitalism; one is a "Marxian theorist" whose biography is not linked to correctly (even though AnieHall created it). The other is the French Black Book of Capitalism. (It appears that the aforementioned "Marxian theorist" wrote a German book with the same name.) What I'm wondering is: Should the entire article be nominated for deletion, or should everything be removed and the whole thing stubbed except for the criticisms of the two Black Books? Thanks in advance for any input you might have, TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It is an absurd article. I doubt it would pass AfD as it is not using RS sources. Collect (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Tom Luna Article Edit

Collect, you edited the Tom Luna article and cited your reason for removing the gpo.gov citation as: "rm argumentation from a BLP, and removed primary source used to bolster the editorialising in the BLP, rm article about the Misplaced Pages article" and that is simply ridiculous. What I wrote was not "used to bolster the editorializing in the BLP" as it was clearly FACT from a government printing.

Yours Truly, Kleej13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

So you feel "It should be noted however ..." is strictly neutral wording? Or that "in Idaho a college degree is required to hold the office of State Superintendent" is NPOV and not OR in a WP:BLP (note that primary sources are rarely allowed at all in articles)? Etc? Sorry -- the language was not in keeping with the requirements of WP:BLP at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Iron Cross, Wilcken

I stated the wars during which an Iron Cross could be earned. If you did not take part in any of these wars, you did not get one. --Kar98 (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently stray Iron Crosses were awarded after 1813 and before 1870 -- so we have to use what the source says - otherwise we are using WP:OR "original research." I did determine that the source did not use "Kaiser" which I corrected. Collect (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Apparently"? JFC. Also "deciding to leave the army while on a assigned mission" = desertion. Also, even LDS sources use "desertion" --Kar98 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to find a reliable source using the term - that is what WP:V requires. Examples of non-war awards include that of Friedrich Jahn, who was awarded the Iron Cross in 1840, showing that Frederick William IV did, indeed, give the award out. refers to the Iron Cross being awarded during the Prussia-Denmark war in 1848 (even though I found a source saying it was not authorized for the Schleswig-Holstein war at all it takes is one exception to be a problem for a blanket claim). refers to an undated "rare" medal for the war being an "iron cross." In which case the claim that it was only revived in the Franco-Prussian War may be the iffy one. Collect (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine,

...but it was your manner of writing which caught my eye. I've found over the years that if someone - myself, for example - thinks that everyone else is at fault, then they should cast their net a bit wider still. --Pete (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read that user's "interesting" user talk page, by the way, and examine some of his posts across Misplaced Pages and on Jimbo's page. I am like Job, but occasionally an editor manages to sorely try my patience. I am willing to disagree with others, and have them disagree with me, but I have never made an "enemies list" ever. Collect (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to bother you again, but....

I was just wondering if you wanted to weigh in here, given your comments and your edits on the article under discussion. Thanks, TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I was already watching that "article." I can not believe anyone would seriously use the polemical "essays" as claims for "fact" on Misplaced Pages. Collect (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment on Talk:Paul Ryan

I missed it the other day, but I know you know that this comment wasn't appropriate. The old adage 'comment on the edit, not the editor.' If you feel there is personal bias, the appropriate venue is WP:RFC/U or disputing the edit itself as POV and a BLP violation. I realize this gets tiring, but you have to remain consistent in that effort and not act inappropriately yourself. And I have to remain consistent about calling folks out on this sort of behavior. Please don't let me see it happen again in this topic area (or anywhere).--v/r - TP 17:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note moreover that other editor's postings on this user talk page after being politely asked to desist. I was irascible I fully admit, but I rather think you might well look deeper into that perspn's edit history as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

page numbers

I am also a big fan of page numbers. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Frank L. VanderSloot". Thank you! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Mediation

Could you please comment on this on the MKuCR talk page.
Thank you in advance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard

Your name has been mentioned in a discussion concerning User: Agadant and the Web Sheriff article at the Administrator's Noticeboard. You can join the discussion by clicking here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking for comment

Given the recent series of charges and arrests, it's about time to revisit the Health Services Union affair, but before I dive in there, I'd be interested in your thoughts on balance at Alan Jones (radio broadcaster). If that's okay, then there should be no problems. --Pete (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow -- too many pointed adverbs, too much irrelevant "stuff" in it, too many minor lawsuits (when a suit is commenced a long time ago and there is no evidence at all that it was resolved against a person, it is likely that t was dismissed). In short - it is too long by half at least. I suggest you try pruning it down to a reasonable level for a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Global warming

I'm not sure why you have decided to mention you haven't commented on the AfD. You do have an extensive history of appearing at global warming related meta discussions and you appear to try and make it appear that you have no particular POV on the issue. Here you are commenting on the article in userspace: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Lucy_Skywalker/Marcel_Leroux. Technically you didn't comment on the AfD, but you are involved in the discussions, and your comments as though you haven't are misleading. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh? Tell me exactly how many "global warming discussions" I have participated in. Then note I have over 25,000 edits. Virtually none of which are related to "global warming." Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much

Collect, I want to thank you for your contributions, both on the MfD page for my sandbox Leroux bio page deletion, and for your articles listed above, each of which makes me sigh with warm recognition.

While at Misplaced Pages in 2007 I came to the sad conclusion that all "fringe" topics at Misplaced Pages were invariably the losers, invariably badly misrepresented and badly hounded, and in general it seemed due at least in part to the otherwise absolutely essential WP:NOR and WP:N. I still think the WP vision and ideals are great. But I've long believed that at least for now, it is impossible to expect Climate Science to get a fair hearing here. I note that even the four "noted" scientists with WP bios whom I linked to,Paul Reiter, Nils-Axel Mörner, Zbigniew Jaworowski, and Nobel prizewinner Kary Mullis in my defence of keeping the original article, have all had what looks unmistakeably to me like tarring, to link them with supposedly junk beliefs which undermine the credibility of their heretical views on "global warming". With that in mind I actually set up another wiki for "climate skeptics" on a MediaWiki platform, about a year ago, with intermittent work on it since then. When I heard the Leroux bio was about to be deleted, I came over here to copy it to my "sandbox" here, as I'd been advised elsewhere to do, as seemed reasonable. But that was not allowed to stay there in safety either.

It seems that I should in all good conscience be able to copy the bio of Leroux at least to my wiki, if it is not wanted here, and without the fuss over some kind of violations that I don't understand, that he seems to be injecting. I'd be grateful for any advice you can give.

cheers Lucy Skywalker (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thsnks. My position is that the topic he is involved in is not what is important, nor is whether a person is "fringe" important - what counts is whether a user of Misplaced Pages might wish to find information about the person. The "notability guidelines" are intended to make sure that we cover topics which readers might reasonably wish to read about - but it has gotten for some to be "a good reason to remove stuff we do not like" in any case. Misplaced Pages has tons of articles which are read less than ten times a day worldwide ... and I actually think the "number of views" is a better indicator of "notability" than whether the person is "important" by virtue of being "important" g>. End soapbox. And the actual copyright requirement is that your initial edit give the Misplaced Pages URL for the last version of the article on Misplaced Pages. Collect (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all you say. Thanks for noting the actual copyright requirement. Does this satisfy? (it should AFAICT). Lucy Skywalker (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It well ought. And remove the "redlinks" <g>. Collect (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. By "redlinks" do you mean the references to WP templates that don't work on my wiki? because if so - I want to install equivalent templates and those redlinks work as reminders to myself... Now since you are helping me here despite it not being strictly WP, is there anything I can do in return for you/WP? Lucy Skywalker (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Just saying nice stuff about me is more than enough <g>. Collect (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Misha B

For your interest yet another editor with probable support from others is planning to restore the Bully allogations to this page, see Misha AMBER Bryan, would value your comment if possible....Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

umm.. we are discussing what you really really really meant by undue weight :) maybe you can correct my or the other editors interpretation of your words:) ...sorry if its me getting it wrong :) ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The debate is going on and I would value both a guide to what you said (re: Archive2 UNDUE http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Misha_B/Archive_2 if my link attempt fails .... UNDUE nope i dont know how to link to the archive) and your independent comment, if only to say I am wrong :)

Currently the are two favoured versions of a revised controversy section on the Misha B page which was removed after your original comment. Addressing the controversy

1. Bryan became subject of a controversy during a live show in week three when judge Tulisa accused the singer of making "mean comments" and judge Walsh a "bully" backstage. Both later apologised. However, judge Gary Barlow later said he believed the wrongful allegations had ended Bryan's chances of winning the contest.
2. Bryan became subject of a controversy during a live show in week three when judge Tulisa accused the singer of making "mean comments" and judge Walsh a "bully" backstage. Both later apologised. The other two panel members and several contestants leapt to Bryan’s defence. Judge Gary Barlow later said he believed the wrongful allegations had ended Bryan's chances of winning the contest, "You have been wrongfully accused in the past of being someone that you are not." However good Bryan's performances were that followed the damage was done, she never recovered from the accusation. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I personally dont think it should be included at all. I am afraid the article is currently locked due to another editorial dispute which sadly I got involved in...Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Atlas

I have posted a brief reply to your weighing in, and would like to point out to you that the Fox article people keep pointing to to justify the user rating's inclusion does not even mention the user approval rating.

I wouldn't be half as frustrated as I am by this whole thing if the people pushing the user rating weren't misrepresenting their sources. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not care about anything other than the use of WP:RS - and if RT is properly cited, one must not be upset. Collect (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That's the thing - it isn't. JH has been trying to push WP:IAR regarding this, but I'm not buying his "consensus." --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I demur. Collect (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

A discussion has been opened at Misplaced Pages:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Frank_L._VanderSloot, where all discussion should take place.

The questions are:

1. Based on the claim of Synthesis, should the original version or the revised version of the LGBT Section be used in the article from henceforth—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
2. Because the original "LGBT issues" Section adversely comments on a Living Person, should that section be immediately replaced with the revised section—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
3. Should the Sources identified as faulty or not germane be eliminated from the list of References?
   GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

3RR

You've now exceeded WP:3RR on Alan Jones and would do well to take a break. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

self-reverted -- though using a primary source in a WP:BLP is quite likely covered by WP:BLP. I consider rumours of "homosexuality" to be "contentious". Collect (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting. As for what is "contentious" -- it's a highly revealing comment and I suggest it's not really something to say in polite company. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Misplaced Pages:Collect's Law

Misplaced Pages:Collect's Law, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Collect's Law and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Misplaced Pages:Collect's Law during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Nobody Ent 17:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

COMPLAINT - Removal of References on Frank L. VanderSloot page

Dear COLLECT -

After looking around I discovered a message you wrote that attempted to explain why you removed all references to me in the Frank L. VanderSloot page.

I am published and/or referenced in a number of legitimate National and independent medial outlets such as well respected journalists like Glenn Greenwald and Rachel Maddow. I am also recognized for my work on LGBT issues.

The Idaho Statesman Op-Ed would not have been printed had it contained factual errors. It is relevant to the larger story. As for being self-published, many independent journalists, like me, have their own blogs and do write well sourced credible stories, with or without editorializing.

Here is some of my work that has been published or referenced in national media and independent media.

FAIR.org in their Magazine Extra! - Idahomophobia -In a conservative media market, anti-LGBT bias thrives http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4341

BoingBoing.net - Don't let Mitt Romney's anti-gay billionaire backer whitewash his intimidation of critics http://boingboing.net/2012/03/21/how-mitt-romneys-anti-gay-bi.html

Southern Poverty Law Center Magazine The Intelligence Report The Story Behind the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2011/winter/the-story-behind-afas-bryan-fischer

BoiseWeekly.com - Regular Contributor http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/ArticleArchives?author=1654400

Boise Weekly - Exporting Homophobia: American far-right conservative churches establish influence on anti-gay policy in Africa Won 2nd place at Idaho Press Club awards 2010 for Watchdog / Investigative Report for this work that too 6 months http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/exporting-homophobia-american-far-right-conservative-churches-establish-influence-on-anti-gay-policy-in-africa/Content?oid=1767227

Furthermore I have been cited as a credible source on a number of LGBT related topics including:

1. Last May by bestselling author and investigative Journalist Jane Mayer in her New Yorker expose on Bryan Fischer 2. My work on Exporting Homophobia was referenced in Frank Schafer’s book Sex Mom & God (pages 255 & 256) 3. My SELF PUBLISHED "Nampa ID Recreation Center Denies Same-Sex Families" http://may-chang.com/?p=146 was cited in the The prestigious Williams Institute, a national think tank at UCLA Law that produces high quality research with real-world relevance, September 2009 Memorandum: “Idaho Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Documentation of Discrimination.”

I am insulted that because I am ALSO self-publishing means that I somehow do not maintain source and references credibility or that my opinion is not a legitimate part of the story. To removed other references of me published by Glenn Greenwald and produced by MSNB's The Rachel Maddow Shoe appears disingenuous and suspect.

I Think you get the point!

I get that past edits related two another pages were not adhering to policy. I was corrected and have complied ever since. Changing the spelling of my name should not disqualify credible reporting.

I would like to remind you, that the items you removed were correctly added by someone else - NOT ME! I there respectfully request that you please return all references to me that you removed, and correct the spelling of my name, which was what started this in the first place.

Thank You, Jody May-Chang Independent Journalist May-Chang Media — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jody May-Chang (talk • contribs) 18:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Newspapers print "reader's opinions" all the time without "fact-checking" them. And I am not the first person to direct you to WP:COI. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Her edit was merely a correction of the spelling of her name. The editor is not in any way violating WP:COI and there is nothing in WP:COI that should preclude her from editing the article in the future. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That editor cited her own story in an article. Does not that even concern you a teensy bit? And I would note that if she has written about a person in any publication, that she does, indeed, have a COI with regard to the BLP. Collect (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That depends. Was it an article that was published in a reliable source? Was the content appropriate? If so, then I don't see any COI issue of concern. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Clue: Misplaced Pages does not even allow "letters" to the New York Times as a "source". Clear? Collect (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not at all clear. In the case of the VanderSloot article, the citation to May-Chang's op-ed is allowable as per WP:NEWSORG and WP:RSOPINION. The citations have been in the article for quite some time, and it wasn't May-Chang that first cited them. There was no justification for the recent deletion. Anyhow, no need to continue this on your user page, as your concerns have already been addressed on the article's Talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not an "op ed" - it is labelled clearly as "reader's opinion." Clear now? Collect (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Consider voluntarily userfying Collect's law

You can still keep shortcuts pointing to it in the main WP space (unless someone RfDs them). I generally support editor's ability to write nearly any essay they like, but one like this where most any edit might corrupt what you originally intended it to be might be better in your user space. Gigs (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Their sole intent is to corrupt it - I was intending to move it to userspace, rename, then back in mainspace but some of these jokers would still act like graffitti artists <g>. Odds are they will find another essay to attack next - and I think that some savvy admin should clamp down on such games, Deo volente. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your objection to one of the two MkuCr consensus edits

I believe you read it too quickly. Can you double check your position and respond there? AmateurEditor (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinks which are not duplicated do not need removal in a section. I do not approve of excessive wikilinks, but that was not the case at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The Manual of Style for linking states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." The proposal refers to the Soviet link already being used earlier in the article, rather than earlier in the section. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The case at hand is a section in which it is the only such link - as the article does link to subarticles, it is not necessary to remove each link in each section. The MoS cavil mainly applies to some who wikilink every occurrence of a word or phrase in a simple article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"Cavil"? Look, if you feel so strongly about this, I'll drop it. I thought your objection was just based on a couple of mistakes and would change if you realized it. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My position is stated on the article talk page. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

1. "Why was Misha B knocked out of the X Factor? - Telegraph". The Daily Telegraph. London: TMG. ISSN 0307-1235. OCLC 49632006. Retrieved 22 October 2012.
2. "'Bullying scandal killed Misha B's X Factor dream' | The Voice Online". voice-online.co.uk. 2012 . Retrieved 22 October 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
3. "Why was Misha B knocked out of the X Factor? - Telegraph". The Daily Telegraph. London: TMG. ISSN 0307-1235. OCLC 49632006. Retrieved 22 October 2012.
4. "'Bullying scandal killed Misha B's X Factor dream' | The Voice Online". voice-online.co.uk. 2012 . Retrieved 22 October 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
5. "Misha B Claims Bullying Row Damaged Her Chances". MTV. Retrieved 19 October 2012.