User talk:Collect

Still on reduced Wiki presence.

Alice and proper procedure:

'That's very important,' the King said, turning to the jury. They were just beginning to write this down on their slates, when the White Rabbit interrupted: 'UNimportant, your Majesty means, of course,' he said in a very respectful tone, but frowning and making faces at him as he spoke.

'UNimportant, of course, I meant,' the King hastily said, and went on to himself in an undertone,

'important--unimportant--unimportant--important--' as if he were trying which word sounded best. ...........

The King turned pale, and shut his note-book hastily. 'Consider your verdict,' he said to the jury, in a low, trembling voice. ..... 'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first--verdict afterwards.' .......

'Who cares for you?' said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) 'You're nothing but a pack of cards!'

~ hooray for progress! ~

As I said at the outset, mediation is about compromise. Collect (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Never knew you were a fan of flagged revisions

Learn something new every day. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically the BLP issues on WP have major legal consequences, which is a main reason why Jimbo and the foundation want them. This is not an inclusionist issue -- it has major implications for the future of WP. Maybe you can change your position as a result? Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm always willing to consider other opinions. I also concur this isn't an inclusionist issue; I think it's an accessibility issue. If there is a legal issue and this is the solution, they should just enact it. They don't need Wikipedians (laymen by any stretch of the imagination...including myself) to tell them what to do. Their edicts override any consensus and policy. Accordingly, if enacted, I certainly would support it as it their authority is the basis for which I would be granted a mop. To ignore their guidance would be like dumping mud on the floor others mop so well. My concerns stem from a lack of accessibility (it quickly becomes the encyclopedia that anyone can (largely) edit, to one that anyone can edit as long as you aren't talking about a living person. Like I said, if it is a legal issue, then they should just declare it to be so and enact it. I would have no concerns there. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Business Plot

Thanks for the heads-up. That fellow is really amazing. I thought the page was edging towards reality and now...?Capitalismojo (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

False accusations

[15] 23:53 8 May [16] 01:38 9 May [17] 18:19 [18] 23:15

Look debating the issues is fine, but I won't tolerate false accusations. I have not once violated the 3rr on the Business PLot article. The first edit you cited occured at 20:53, not 23:53. If your going to make accusations like that, don't lie about the dates. annoynmous 01:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In which case you hit 4RR in the prior 24 hours? Seems an odd complaint to make. Collect (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not an odd complaint because it's isn't true. I never made more than 3 edits in a 24 hour period and you have yet to show one concrete example where I did. annoynmous 01:53, 10 May 200 (UTC)

And now I see it has been reverted again. Sigh.Capitalismojo (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

He got a block and a topic ban -- seems he should quiet down now. Collect (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: 207.237.33.36

• 207.237.33.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

That IP was his first account, and it has been blocked for a year, along with three other accounts, soon to be four, as I alerted an admin which was involved in the matter. I got him blocked because he was harassing and stalking me off-wiki. The ban isn't formal per WP:DENY, but he is banned.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, and his claims won't get far, even if he does get on here long enough to file a CU, they'll see we aren't the same. I don't edit that much in the mainspace, because I have no one single interest.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia–Ireland relations

I saw your comment on this AfD debate - following is the notice I sent. You can see from my contribution log who got it. Yes, I agree, I should have been more neutral and less selective on the distribution. I got concerned when I saw how close to closure the debate was on a subject I thought was interesting and relevant, but which was just a stub this morning. Still learning Wikipedia etiquette... Aymatth2 (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw this AfD, which caught my interest, then got side-tracked into mini-bios of Irish participants in the Colombian wars of independence: James Towers English, James Rooke, William Aylmer and Francisco Burdett O'Connor, then further side-tracked to Mariano Montilla and Pedro Antonio Olañeta. John Devereux (con artist) and Francisco Tomás Morales are obvious gaping holes, and I suppose others will appear. But to go back to the AfD, now in day 6, any comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the title was chosen first, then every Google possible connection is inserted into the article. It is not in parallel with other articles -- and using the same criteria of inclusion, we could have a US-Ireland "relations" page with thousands of entries about famous Irishmen in the US. Unfortunately, that is not then about internation "relations" but about "Any Americans noted in Ireland or any Irishmen noted in the US" which is rather a broad and unencyslopedic topic. Collect (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fascism article

I noticed that you reversed a deletion I made to Fascism#Political spectrum without commenting on Talk:Fascism#Political spectrum. As you are aware the references you cited do not support the statement and it is unclearly written. It is important that articles do not contain inaccurate, ambiguous statements, and therefore request that you either delete or properly amend the sentence. I note that I mentioned this issue at your RfC where you had ample opportunity to explain your position. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly. Consensus found that the cites fully back the sentence you removed which is the sentence you suggested. Try to get a different consensus if you wish, but do not think that your sngle-minded deletion of sourced material is logical. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI I have posted notice about this dispute in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Collect. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Copperfield

Can we focus on the content not on the editors please? Amicaveritas (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Shall do so -- I had not intended any improper post to be sure. I am concerned just how he "knows" something he asserts without source. Collect (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't believe that to be the case. He's just an inclusionist. I do have concerns that current edits are not compliant with WP:NPV and are too long as to give WP:UNDUE. I don't think that the source can be denied as reliable given the New York Times cites it as being used by main stream media. Amicaveritas (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

I saw your comment on the section about me at AN/I. Thank you for taking the time to examine Richard Arthur Norton's actions and summarize them for the folks there. I've been on the receiving end of his manipulative style since this began, including lies about me nominating articles I didn't nominate, like the Pilot episode, or his accusations that i'm now proceeding to nominating Season two episodes, when the only season two i nom'd was nom'd at the same time as a stack of Season One episodes. Instead, he continues to present alarmist statements, hoping to inflame the argument further. Thanks for looking at it calmly, and seeing what a few others have seen. ThuranX (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. And keep away from expletives. Collect (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What?

All I have been doing is changing the colors of the wikitables for the Australian Open and United States Open to the correct colors to match the navboxes and the articles. I am trying to make everything uniform. TennisAuthority 22:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to alarm you for sure and I apologize if you were upset by my post. Collect (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC Invitation

Within the past month or so, you appear to have commented on at least one AN/I, RS/N, or BLP/N thread involving the use of the term "Saint Pancake" in the Rachel Corrie article. As of May 24th, 2009, an RfC has been open at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Request_for_Comments_on_the_inclusion_of_Saint_Pancake for over a week. As editors who have previously commented on at least one aspect of the dispute, your further participation is welcome and encouraged. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Query on my RfA

Collect, you and I have interacted on many articles/talk pages/etc. I think that, even though we sometimes disagree, we're both reasonable editors. My question for my RfA is whether or not I support or oppose flagged revisions, why would that have any bearing on what I could do as an administrator? Right now, it isn't policy. To gain consensus to implement, we would need the support of users. However, that support isn't contingent upon their status as an admin or not. If implemented, Admins would be bound to enforce it; if they actively refused to, they should be desysoped ASAP.

I guess my question is, how does this pertain to adminship? — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It is actually a matter of quite some importance to me ... BLPs are a horrid mess on WP right now, and I would like admins (whose voice does carry a bit more weight) who would say that we do need to make the policies more restrictive on them and not less restrictive. It is not the powers which matter (heck, the powers of an admin are not all that much to brag about) but the depth of voice which would be heard. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand the "horrid mess" of the BLPs right now. Could you point me to somewhere that shows such an extent (because I obviously haven't seen it yet)?

I've seen a few isolated incidents, but, for the large part, once there is a problem with a BLP, Wikipedia deals with it swiftly and effectively, as with most issues. I concur that the "powers" (and that is really stretching it a bit) are minimal for an admin. My point is that the "depth of voice" is not increased in any appreciable way whether or not I'm an admin. Furthermore, apparently, Jimbo said "We're doing flagged revisions!" and then reversed himself shortly thereafter until the kinks are ironed out. In short, we haven't found a way to do this yet. I applaud the goal of making our articles (BLPs in particular) more reliable and less prone to vandalism/malfeasance, but I don't think a proper balance has been made between the goals of a complete encyclopedia and making one that anyone can edit and that is one reason Jimbo decided not to act upon it at this time. I don't think I can support a concept without knowing the details of implementation. If we can strike a balance, then I think it can be implemented. Otherwise the policy will be either ineffective and a waste of time or so effective it will become "the encyclopedia that anyone with a registered account and not a new user can edit.

There is another potential solution: allow only registered users to edit BLPs. I have no issue with that and it forces an extra step into the process of editing a BLP. If we put a notice at the top showing how easy it is to register for an account, it would be easy to tag and delete vandalism, but at the same time encourage legit editors into the Wikipedian community. A simple notice that we can no longer allow contributions by non-registered users because XYZ is fine by me.

Anyway, like I said, my primary problem is the vagueness of implementation. It seems this whole issue (and many others) could simply be decided by edict from the great and powerful Oz. I personally believe that is what is lacking in this encyclopedia. I'm not saying we need a heavy hand, but a simple, "We're going to do it this way" would go a long way to resolving many problems quickly and efficiently. I am of the firm belief that a concrete way to do something (i.e. we'll do dates in a certain format) would solve a LOT of the more contentious issues instead of waiting for the masses to decide something (this is not to say that the masses are wrong in any capacity, but true democracy where everyone gets one vote takes a long time to get done). In short, a little bit of editorial control with regards to protections and formatting would prevent a lot of the problems we see today. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

JW and the Foundation appeared to have said that "flagged revisions" would be tested, but they do not wih to impose them (if that is logical). Some of the worst BLP offenders are not IP vandals but editors who assert ownership of an article or who say (as a f'rinstance) "My motivations are immaterial, but if you have to know, I delight in adding frank and full details of misbehaviours to pages on so-called "celebs", many of whom are absolute scoundrels or hypocrites, or worse, under the glossy veneer. But I welcome people like Karelin7, who are on the subject's payroll or close friends with the subject, as long as they add properly sourced puffery to the page. What puzzles me is that there seems to be some unspoken sentiment among a lot of wikipedia editors that no matter what the celeb does in real life, we need to hide it unless the facts were reported by Moses on the tablets brought down from Mount Sinai. Wake up, my fellow editors! We are not paid to shield these people from the consequences of their own misdeeds. Free your heads from the American celeb-worship cargo cult religion. " Which I consider as rather proving my point. Collect (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And what would flagged revisions do to pages edited by such individuals? If they are long-time users, then flagged revisions isn't going to do anything.

IMHO, the guts to test it, but not implement it shows a lack of leadership on their part. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The ones you mention have a lot vested in the idea that wikis will automatically ytend to produce better articles over time. Imposing this from above would be almost an admission that their ideals do not work. Collect (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That will only work within a given framework. We have admins, bureaucrats, etc. that handle issues where someone needs to make a decision. We work within the constraints given to us. Better defining where we are going and how we are going to get there is appropriate for a leader to do. Letting us fumble around when there is clear support for a concept, but not consensus. At some point, someone has to step up and say, "this is the best we can do when it comes to consensus" and implement it whether or not there is overwhelming consensus or not. Imagine if the U.S. were run this way? You think Congress is slow now... :-)

All I'm saying is that I don't support such a nebulous concept with no firm implementation, though the general idea to improve the quality and reliability of the encyclopedia is certainly appropriate and desirable. Can you at least understand that I oppose the concept as it is currently stated because implementation is too vague? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My statements in the discussion about the "test" are, in fact, explicit that it should be less vague. :) My statements there were a great deal stronger than JW's were, to be sure. Collect (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so we agree that they are vague. The other problem I see is that this seems to necessitate some additional user category (other than the existing "user" , "bot", "administrator", "bureaucrat", "oversight", and "checkuser" categories) be created and some sort of nomination/appointment process be obtained. There is no way that admins could handle these additional duties. If it is a legal problem or necessity, then Jimbo/the Wikimedia Foundation should just enact it (or expressly state that we should come up with a solution). Seeing as there isn't such a drive, I don't see this as an urgent issue/problem (there is also a severe lack of examples of any serious problems). I think the issue of copyrighted images is far more problematic (should we have a form of "flagged revisions" for images too?).

In summary,

1. flagged revisions isn't going to stop long-time, registered users, which you stated was the significant problem.
2. Semi-protection is acceptable as a readily accessible widespread solution that can already be enacted with community approval if this is a widespread problem. That would solve the problem of short-term registered users and IPs, but as you stated, they don't seem to be the primary problem.
3. any problems with an article about a living person are quickly dealt with, but we can't fix what we don't know to be a problem (perhaps a new reporting procedure at the top of every BLP that states where to go for such problems and make it a subset of WP:AIV? This would make it easy for a new user to report a problem).
4. The goal of improving Wikipedia's reliability is important.
5. I think the goal of Flagged Revisions simply doesn't have the consensus of users to enact within Wikipedia. To enact such a new, widespread system, you need the support of users and we don't have that support. Without such support enacting something this controversial will cause vastly more problems internally than it will solve externally. Example: [[1]]

I would love to hear your thoughts on the addressed points above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

break

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-05-25/News and notes: It looks like flagged revisions is coming one way or another and it is being directed from the top. This is the kind of leadership I expect. While I don't necessarily think it is a good idea nor necessary, its implementation appears inevitable. As such, standing in its way is pointless. As a user/should I become an admin, I will support its implementation when a final version is settled upon in accordance with its associated policies. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

At which point, you would have my support next time. As you can see, I consider it of substantial importance (and only a start on reforming how some people edit BLPs). Collect (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

GAN Robert C. Michelson

I left a message at Talk:Robert C. Michelson. Regards.Materialscientist (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report

You should do a little research before making statements you can't back up - If I was a sockpuppet of Ratal, [it's unlikely that I'd get that account blocked. Next time do some basic research and you will not look so silly. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I made no accusation. I did say that those who disagreed with you and Ratel were called a number of names, which I would suggest is not disputable. And I suggest that my polite statement to you that your edit summary was a tad over the top was proper, even though you deleted it. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I made no accusation. yes you did, now you realise it was a mistake and you didn't do any basic research and now are beating a rapid retreat but it's easier to just say "I got it wrong" than try and weasel around your original statement in such a shameful manner. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I am just opposed to "instant sock allegations" when there is no basis for them -- usually if an editor has been blocked and a new one shows up, there is some evidence to work with. Karelin was not blocked, and so had no need of a sock AFAICT. Collect (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

John Kenney knows a lot more than I do on this - I recommend you turn to him for help, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am loath to canvass at all and you had been there -- the situation is fairly grave with material on the "political spectrum" which had been in for four years now excised. I also have a "friend" who appears to have deliberately followed me while he is pushing an RFAR on me so I really am trying to be as proper as possible. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I reversed your recent edit at Alan Harvey.[2] Alan Harvey actually supported apartheid. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I can find claims that the Springbok Club had supporters of apartheid in it, but not that Alan Harvey as an individual supported it. Most of the sources are not RS alas. I found one pay cite from the (NY) Amsterdam News, but no direct connection is there either. [3] calls him "very antBoer" which is not indictive of much. He is also indicated as not having signed the "charter" which likely indicated he did not accept it. Bunch of other stuff (he opposed Mugabe's land seizures, and supports Israel) -- but no RS direct link to supporting apartheid. Did you find one? Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You defended the right-wing racist Alan Harvey by saying that he never supported apartheid. I do not want to get into another one of your discussions about racial theory. There is evidence that he supported apartheid, but I do not know why you claim that only supporters of apartheid were racist. I appreciate that you are concerned about the reputations of people accused of racism, but request that you submit them for discussion rather than just deleting them. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You stated specifically "Alan Harvey actually supported apartheid." WP, however, requires reliable sources for such claims. When a claim is made about a living person without a reliable source, BLP requires that the claim be deleted. BTW, I also do the ssme for articles on Communists, and others. My position is that we must carefully use BLP rules on everyone, whether we like them or not. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reversed your revert with the notation "Harvey supports racism". The entry is not about apartheid, it is about racism. The fact that Harvey is a racist is clearly mentioned and sourced in the article. Please do not remove sourced material and bring up orthogonal issues such as whether Harvey supported Apartheid. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You stressed "apartheid" several times. Now find a solid source indicating Harvey is a "racist." We must abide by WP:BLP entirely. At this point, it appears that he removed "race" from anything he is promoting. Again -- it was, in point of fact, you who insisted that he supported apartheid. "(cur) (prev) 22:28, 29 May 2009 The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) (10,906 bytes) (Reverse previous edit - Harvey supported apartheid) (undo) " - I only said it was unclear he was racist as it appeared he opposes apartheid. If you want a contentious claim in a BLP, it is up to you to provide a reliable source. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to Harvey's former publication South African Patriot in Exile that was founded by the White Rhino club and was dedicated to "British and European Imperialism" and "Separate Development" and opposed to "multi-cultural societies".[4] Notice that the English translation of apartheid is separateness. Regardless this is a clear statement of racism. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

IOW you have no cite for him specifically supporting apartheid, and as his current publications appear to not contain racism, your claim of him being a racist is very weak indeed. You need something a bit better IMHO. Collect (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You are stating that Apartheid is racism. Is that your view? The Four Deuces (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I made no such statement, nor do I see any reason why you wish to impute any such statement to me. You stated that he specifically supported apartheid, but under BLP without any cite for the claim, it does not belong in a WP article. You stated he is racist, but without any RS source for such a claim, it does not belong in a WP article. WP:BLP exists as policy, not just a bunch of words. Now do you have a reliable source making a statement of fact? If not, then the claim fails. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not attacking you as an editor, as you said at Talk:Alan Harvey#Racism, merely stating that I see things differently from you. And since you posted at BLP and only one other person has commented so far, the statements "on BLP/N I was told that this was the right thing to do" and "That no one at BLPNsupported your contentions appears to indicate that you are also alone in your interpretation" may not be the only way of seeing the matter. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you found an RS for the claims you wish made? Collect (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm the one who reported him. [5] I hope that you hadn't lost interest in discussion about section. -- Vision Thing -- 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Van Zandt/ Other Testimony

Hi, I think that this shouldn't be in "testimony". It wasn't testimony. He (Van Zandt) reportedly went on the radio to support Butler. He was not under oath. This was his public reaction to a reporter's questions.

Paul French was, however, testifying under oath before the committee.

It seems to me that the committee testimony (French) should be in the committee section, and the public reaction (Zandt) should not be improperly identified as testimony. You've been working on this longer than I have, if consensus is that Z's remarks should be characterized as testimony, I'm fine with that. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I did post on talk that I thought that these two "other testimony" items should be moved unless someone thought differently. No one posted anything so that is why I split them up. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Z was presented as though he spoke agaonst the reaction of the NYT. AFAICT, he was not reacting to the NYT. And, for dome reason, I had thought his words were to the committee -- at least it was presented that way for a long time in the article and I had not checked that one out, so if not testimony, it should be characterized properly for sure, and I apologize. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. No need to apologize. Its relatively minor.Capitalismojo (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just seen the result of the RfC. I am unclear on what that means...are you unable to post to "political" talk pages as well? I have found your comments on talk pages generally interesting and occasionally insightful. It would be a shame if you were unable to add your (sometimes acerbic) thoughts on all talk pages untill December. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No talk page restrictions :) ... and I am not about to "shut up" where I feel my opinions may help. Collect (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect.

• Given your behaviour following the unblock, I'm restricting you to 0rr (no reverts or undo edits any kind) on all political articles and political BLPs for 6 months: You are free only to revert the most straightforward kinds of vandalism. If you make a single revert to any political article or political BLP, I will block you from editing for at least two weeks. Other editors can report reverts either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite the RfC close.

• If you make any more legal threats, I will block you from editing indefinitely until you straightforwardly retract and disavow them. Editors can likewise report legal threats either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite the RfC close.

• If you edit tendentiously or disruptively again, I will start a thread at WP:ANI asking for consensus to block you for at least 1 month for disruption. Editors can likewise report disruption either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite the RfC close.

• You or any other editor can appeal this close or any of these restrictions at WP:AN as they please, when they please and I'll be more than happy to abide by whatever other consensus which might follow.

• I'm open to further input from any editor, on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My requests are at your user talk page. Merci. Collect (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

HEHEHEHEHEHE

Seriously, pay attention. Do you not read your own sub pages? There's a huge list of articles and editors needing your contribution, so ignoring us in favor of the hehheehehhehee vandals trying to trick trip you up is just plain hurtful. Flowanda | Talk 06:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Shall do so. Still have Widney to work on. Thanks! Collect (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Thanks!

No problem. Lord knows we've had our differences in the past, mainly around AfD, but you've always had a valid and logical reason for your views. That Request for Clusterfuck was half-valid and half "throw shit at a wall and see what sticks", and I'm not going to let a useful, good faith and logical editor be pulled under by crap like that. Ironholds (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Again thanks -- I was amazed that editors with a hundred edits, or even a thousand edits, become "experts" on WP process <g>. One, by the way, has already stated his desire to start another RFAR as soon as he has an argument with me -- showing you some of what was behind all the sutff (I think you missed out on the CUs on me, the SPIs on me, the ANIs, the ANs, and the WQAs all by the same people?) By the way, without disagreement, how can one ever trust opinions? Merci. Collect (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You should read R.I. Aaron's "knowing and the function of reason" - great book on epistemology, particularly when knowledge is an "opinion" and when it becomes a "fact". I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was 7of9 planning on stirring more shit? Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Mindreading applies I suggest. :) The surest sign an opinion is wrong is that everyone in the room agrees with it. (I think that is original, but if it is not, be sure to disagree). Collect (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

over

may you edit in peace! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Editem in Pacem? Sounds a bit fatal? Collect (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

David Stack

• Would you take another look at the David Stack article and possibly change your Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Stack !vote? ty. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Other

I find that it's best to keep these kinds of things off-wiki, i.e. on my own PC where no one can touch it or complain about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So redacted now, no one will find it <g> Collect (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless they're already watching it. >:) If anyone claims that's an attack page, this one is a fair comparison [6] - keeping in mind that user was indef'd about 2 years ago. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

An attack has to have some sort of name or link to go on ... lacking any such, I think it would get laughed at as a claim. <g> Collect (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I only skimmed that one page but I don't recall seeing anyone being targeted. Maybe the ones who complained had a guilty conscience. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor might have a guilty conscience? Land sakes! Collect (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Anything is possible in this crazy internet world. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya think? Collect (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There is another way this could be done, though. Supposing I wanted to maintain an "enemies list", as Tecmobowl was doing shortly before he Black Soxed himself (which is a fitting reference, if you know his history). Instead of calling it "Users who are out to get me", I would call it "My favorite users". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"Thorns that will scratch me and nettles that sting/ These are a few of my favorite things"? Collect (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of The Great Escape

To Rodhullandemu, Blueboar, Collect, 173.72.140.146,

FYI, I just posted a messasge at WP:NORN in the discussion Factual accuracy of The Great Escape that you had participated in, and which has been inactive for a few weeks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Question re:WP:BIAS

Hi Collect,

I'm not sure if you're going to have an opinion on this or not, but here goes: What's up with WP:BIAS? I see this thrown around a lot in AfDs as if is was policy or guideline, but in fact it's not. It's not even an essay, it's a wikiproject. I am missing something? Is there a policy or guideline regarding non-English sources. I fully support the idea that non-English sources can fine for citations provided that the stuff around reliability is respected. But I'm not so on board with the idea that they can be used to establish notability. My feeling is that if English language media hasn't taken notice of topic, then it's unlikely anyone's going to come to en.wiki for info. And it seems like it would open the flood gates for myriad bios of Sri Lankan soap opera stars and stuff like that which no serious English reference would ever cover. But that's just me, and maybe there are very good counter arguments I'm not thinking of. So my question: what is the official wikipolicy on using non-English sources to establish notability. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

NPA

I did not make any personal attack on you and did not say that you "made" or "insinuated anything improperly here about anyone". I merely stated that you should "direct any such claims to the administrators" by which I was referring to the following exchange at Talk:Fascism:

BTW, a slew of SPA IP accounts with two or three edits who act like they know everything about the history of the article becomes suspicious. Collect (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to insinuate. If you suspect me of something, say what it is. I would rather concentrate on talking about the article.--89.241.143.113 (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your very first edit ever according to your contributuon history was at 22:57 on 13 June. In less than one half hour, you have made seven edits to the article and talk page. You had been here 4 minutes when your edit summary was "Restore lead para - Vision Thing: if you have objections should should explain them (not just state them) in talk.) " which rather implies you are not a new user at all. This is all fact. No need to "insinuate" anything at all. Do you have any questions? Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a dynamic IP address. I thought that was obvious. Nothing sinister. --89.241.143.113 (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Most such stay in a fairly narrow range -- which other ones have you edited under here? Collect (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You would have to look at accounts from that same ISP which have been blocked -- an interesting exercise, to be sure. Did you do a "WHOIS" on them perchance? Collect (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP address is assigned to Opal Telecom in the UK. I think that they provide a different IP address to their customers when they log in. So I don't see how you could determine whether the user had ever had an account and I don't think WP would block a dynamic IP. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Only the first step <g>. And WP has, indeed, issued range blocks in some cases. Did you read up on some of the cases? Collect (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

RantMedia to stay in Wikipedia

As you were previously involved in AfD discussions regarding RantMedia and Sean Kennedy (Author), I respectfully request your attendance to the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RantMedia. I believe there have been MANY productive responses to concerns on past AfD's, but some still don't seem to agree. If there is any way you can think of improving the article, or contributing to the current AfD, I would appreciate it. Thank you very much for your time. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "

Arthur Kemp

Why are you protecting Arthur Kemp who wrote on his own article that "world famous historians" agree with him ? - it is blatant violation of wiki rules to write such claims and you allow it ! Contributions/173.169.90.98 (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am protecting the "biography of a living person" per WP policies. A person may be despicable, but that does not mean WP policies do not apply. Collect (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Cameron Scott

Thanks most kindly for showing your true colours. It is one of those things which shows the attitude of the sender beyond compare. Collect (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It surely does - when I received this barnstar, I moved it to pride of place on my userpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

Following the RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".

Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.

Please take a look: here.

Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Userspace index RFC

I note that your statement almost entirely overlaps with LtPowers... Wanted to let you know in case you missed that. Gigs (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to be as succinct as possible -- it also overlaps with a couple others <g>. Collect (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

your Macedonia endorsement

May I point out that in your endorsement you mentioned only what the name for the country should be. In your endorsement there seems to be no mention of disambiguation and no reason provided as to whether to chose proposal A over proposal C which also uses Macedonia as the name for the country (Macedonia (country)). The RfC is not only on the question about what name should be used to refer to the country but also about whether Macedonia should be the country article or should it return to being a disambiguation page as was the case prior to the page moves of April that have been locked in place since then. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 22:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I found only one specific view to endorse and did not wish at this time to enter into the other aspects of the issue involved. Macedonia is far from the only place (country, state) whose current borders are not the historic borders -- but it, for some reason, seems to get a lot more flak than the others. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Gone Baby Gone

They have wasted my entire article on Plastic deformation in solids. What recourse do I have, if any ? -- logger9 (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail Edits?

I have just got a talk page full of accusations and threats from some editors claiming they will report me to administrators for deleting their edits and accusing me of deleting things I never did. All of the edits I reverted were fair and justified. Do you have any idea why they are making these accusations? Thanks Christian1985 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

See User:Collect/z for one rationale sometimes used <g>. Keep the overt reverts to a minimum (ideally do only 1 or 2 reverts per day), and no admin should censure you. Ceej1979 is a classic SPA account -- and from his posts to you almost certainly a user who has been around a bit (under another name, in all likelihood). Collect (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Collect, I sent them warnings for their POV edits and they hit back claiming I am 'threatening' them and now they are making false accusations to the administrators saying I deleted their 'sourced material'. If you check the Daily Mail history you will find any reverts I made by their addresses were POV/vandalism. Christian1985 (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"removing sources"

You seem to have repeatedly accused me of "deleting" or "removing" sources at the Fascism article. I have done nothing of this nature, nor have I ever said anything about Libertarianism in connection with the subject. I think you're confusing me with someone else. Just FYI. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I do seem to recall TFD making a huge deal about my adding "Sir" and claiming I should be blocked for it ... he also did a lot of edits on the article removing material and sources. [7] does show you removing a source.

I have checked the talk page, and found where I specifically referred to TFD removing sources, by the way, and asked him to restore the footnotes. The first of your comments on that page was that my pointing out how "reflist" works was a "personal attack" which you wanted me to delete <g>. "Prevailing view? Not according to the multiple cites given. Applicability of "political spectrum"? Not in current texts. It is SYN to assert "prevailing view" without using the cites to say "prevailing." The facts are simple -- WP uses a rule about "reliable sources" and it is those sources which have been sytematically removed from the article contrary to WP:PRESERVE, WP:NPOV etc. As for assertions that your view is "prevailing" -- that is not used as a rationale on WP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)" was my first comment to you and does not seem inaccurate at all.

"Repeatedly accused" seems grossly wrong on your part -- all the mentions I made on the talk page seem accurate and did not refer to you specifically removing material (unless you count one solitary reference to "you and your friends" as meaning you removed specific material?)

Now as to where the issue of "libertarian" appears on that page -- TFD first using in to state that libertarians consider themselves to be right wing (20 June). SlamDiego on 23 June referreed to the Nolan Chart, and john k called it "libertarian propaganda" and SD demurred. My first mention was 30 June where I stated Fascism opposed Libertarianism, which I though was reasonably clear. On 1 July, john k posted to you that multi-dimensional charts are "used by libertarians" and called my post "libertarian nonsense" (interesting since I am not a Libertarian.) Former IP than called libertarianism an "ally" of fascism. On 1 July I pointed out that non-linear spectruns were known by 1948 (in response to a claim that 1999 was a dividing line). As I ccan find absolutely no post to you from me concerning Libertarianism either (I reread every single post on the talk page, I fear you may be confusing me with someone else.

Next time you complain of being repeatedly attacked, try making sure that you were attacked. And when you accuse someone of thinking you wrote about Libertarianism, try making sure they made such a post first. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhmm... at the time you accused me of "removing sources", I had made zero edits to the article. My subsequent edit removed an assertion from the article, along with the source that did not substantiate the assertion.

And yes, it may surprise you to know that I 'do take the comment "all you and friends can do is delete every source you do not like" as an accusation that I had been deleting sources. Ditto for "Look at all the sources you deleted which referred to the problems of locating Fascism qua Fascism on a line, and the number of different proposals for multi-dimensional spectra (not just Nolan) which, IIRC, you dismissed as being Libertarian."

So, as I said, you complained that I had been deleting sources, and complained that I dismissed Nolan as a Libertarian. As I said, I did none of these things. As I said, I think you are confusing me with someone else. I am not the editor who deleted all of your sources, or whatever it is that was done. That is all I have to say on the subject.

Oh, and, saying that I said it was "personal attack" that you explained how reflist works is yet another utter distortion of reality. My exact words were "Unfounded accusations of personal attacks are, themselves, personal attacks", because you had just accused Four Deuces of making a personal attack when all he had done was say that your comments on the IP editor were irrelevant and should be addressed elsewhere. What he said was not a personal attack, but you responded by asking him to withdraw his personal attacks. As I said, saying someone is making a personal attack, when they're obviously not making a personal attack, is itself a personal attack. You never should have said it, and I was correct to object that you should never have said it.

Thank you most kindly. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And I note you take "all you and your friends can do" as an accusation that you, specifically, did something as an attack is frankly untenable. And note that I stated that the non-linear forms were dismissed as libertarian -- I did not say you, or anyonem had called Nolan one. WRT the problem of following outdents and indents and trying to keep thread structure correct, I emended that post so that it is clear that I did not intend any personal accusation at you - but at those who made such deletions. I trust that is satisfactory. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't just say "all me and my friends can do" is delete sources. Later, when speaking directly to me, you referred to "all the sources which you deleted" and "multi-dimensional spectra... which, IIRC, you dismissed as being Libertarian".

If you are going to take the position that these statements did not constitute a claim that I was deleting sources or dismissing something is being Libertarian, I'll say to you, quite frankly, that that position is untenable. And, I didn't say it was an attack, but an accusation. This section was a two-sided exchange between you and me, so I don't see how confusion about indentation could be the cause.

Anyway, I don't see anything further to discuss, since you are clearly aware that it was not me. Cheers! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As WP does not really use threaded messages, but relies on a perverse system of indents, please accept that when I wish to refer to a specific individual editor, I am able to use names. Otherwise, "you" is just the "second person" as opposed to "I" in common English. And "sic patrol" does not really make much sense as typos are not penalized on WP talk pages <g>. Collect (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I find this all quite convincing – a familiar feeling. Thanks. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Serious

I'm serious when I say I'd support easing up in WP:U. My biggest concern is that both before and after any easing up, we communicate effectively with the taggers. They do 80% of the work, and it really frustrates them when whatever rules there are aren't consistently applied from one admin to another or one RfX discussion to another. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 00:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. Thank you very much for the kind note. One of WP's greatest problems is that sometimes it works like a courthouse with a thousand judges <g>. Collect (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Are you aware of this: [8]? As a student of fascism 9and politics more generally) as well as a careful editor, I would think you would have important comments. Wikipedia now consists of so many small communities, I am not sure how many people are aware of this RfC - but it gets to the heart of how Wikipedia is "governed." Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Fascism The real issue there is whether a lead for a secion should reflect what is in the sectuion now, or what two editors want to change the section to. Please drop in. Thanks. And I definitely shall drop in on the RfC you cite. Collect (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Which section of the talk, specifically? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in - if you know others who do not know about this, let them know! RfC's are for all editors, and this one really gets at core issues that should concern everyone yet I fear many just do not know about it.

I understan the conflict on the Fascism talk page and want to comment but there are many talk sections and I am not sure which one would be the appropriate place for a comment. Please let me know. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Try "Useless Discussion?" as a start -- I am doing quite my best to be non-fractious, but it is getting hard after seeing multiple iterations of the same old stuff. Collect (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Concerning six solutions etcx. - this is the dark sid of Wikipedia, which someone once described as the biggest role-playing game on the internet. It is when people stop being interested in writing articles, and instead play prestige and power games. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

Can you help me make this work: Wikipedia:Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 14:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I just want to get thoughtful people involved ... if you know of any others, please encourage them. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Shall do! Collect (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Collect!

I saw your note to Fcreid's page and decided to weigh in my opinion at WP:Areas for reform, since I've been thinking about some of this stuff for quite a while. (I must still have his page on my watchlist, I guess.)

I must be a collector too, I suppose. I'd never really thought of it before. I have plenty of swords of all kinds and not a practical use for a one of them, but would gladly accept ten more if someone'd give 'em to me. I don't know if I'll ever buy any more, as my Japanese katana cost more than my car ... but I'd like to.

I just wanted to say thanks for sticking around the Palin article when so many others seem to have left. Zaereth (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Letting others "win" by driving off good editors seems not in my nature. If anyone tries forcing me off again, I shall get everyone notified who really knows what is happening, for sure. Collect (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Reform

Hey, thanks for the encouragement, and I want to thank you too for being the first one (after me) to "kick it off." I want to prove that a relatively unregulated community is cabable of addressing the major issues it faces.

I agree with you co9mpletely that Jimbo should not be an issue. Did you know anyway that there is another page on "governance" that is explicitly discussing Jimbo's role? We do not need to duplicate them.

I actually wrote in the general principles that sections that attract no discussion could be ended after a reasonable period. There are frankly three sections that I feel very strongly should stay up for a longer time: 5, 7, 8 and 9. 5 and 7 really get to the heart of the "Policy Council" which would have been a new committee and which may well have recommended more new committees to improve Wikipedia "governance." As you know from my comments at the Policy Council RfC, I am opposed to this. But I still believe that this area for reform has to stay up longer. Perhaps members of the policy council are avoiding this page because it is associated with me. But there clearly are people who believe we need more governance and more commitees and they ought to have a space to discuss it. For the same reason, I think we need to keep #6 and 7 up. These two would provide people with a space to discuss real reform of the power structure that currently exists (not Jimbo, I am talking about other offices and committees). I think people are shying away from this because, in the wake of the RfC, they fear stirring up more conflict and dissention. So I think with these three, we should give people more time. Please note that many people who were very vocal at the RfC have not commented here. So9me may do so out of antagonism to me, but if this page is really taking a life of its own, people may see it is not about me and may participate. It is important for the legitimacy of the page that people with whom I have disagreed in the past feel comfortable coming here, making arguments, proposing policies. Important for the health of Wikipedia too, I think.

My aim was to give people a space for talk that could lead to practical proposals either to alter existing policies (or guidelines) or to create new ones. Once proposals had been discussed, people could "leave" the reform project page and create a page to propose a new policy with room for people to vote, and the community could decide on whetehr it is a good idea or not. I think therefore that the page needs someone with the role of "shepherd," someone who can ask people "do you want to propose a policy?" and nudge them to the next section, or ask people to move the discussion along to the point where people are discussing practical implications. Since I created the page, I do not want to be the shepherd. If I take on any more roles people might think I have too much influence which I definitely do not want. I am not trying to get you to act as shepherd, although you might want to consider it. If you can know anyone else who, in different conflicts or on policy page discussions was good at getting people to focus on the practical (without being partisan) maybe you could encourage them to participate in the project page in that unofficial role?

I think one possibility I did not consider was to make each "area of reform" its own page, lined to an "areas for reform" category page. I guess I did not anticipate just how much discussion one question could attract. Or maybe I was hoping that little discussion would be needed before people came up with policy ideas. Your thoughts? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we can get a lot more discussion going -- I just would not want this to be the "annual WP debate on reform" nor do I think the fact that the foundation is going to do something (which has also been true for a long time) should short-circuit this. I once had to oversee four thousand messages a day <g> so this is a piece of cake.

I definitely know about the other pages currently under discussion -- I have commented in most of them now. What I find interesting is that the vituperation found in some has so far managed not to find this page.

I wonder about the "committee" issue - with the belief that some admins' and some editors' memories are long, a lot may be loath to discuss it here. Or did you not feel that any future interactions may be shaped by words written now?

For a shepherd ... certainly not anyone who has baggage, and preferably one who has not weighed in with opinions. Someone who can ask questions -- which is how threads really take on a life. And someone who has no ill-will to anyone being perceived. Kirill Lokshin or Newyorkbrad definitely have credibility if either could be talked into the role. And Baseball Bugs could be counted on to ask serious questions - might be a good role for him.

As for dividing the page - I would suggest that the subsections be labelled more clearly -- on a Watchlist I have to search for the new posts. The page is certainly not long yet by talkpage standards -- time enough to worry about subpages later. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

reform

Thanks for taking the initiative. I really thoght others out there cared about eforming Wikipedia's govenance yet no one has really taken up questions 4-9. If you know others who care about governance here, specifically, do let thm know about the project! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Any opinion on my radical suggestions? Collect (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Asking for your thoughts

Hello, Collect. I replied to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soap Opera "supercouples". Taking into consideration what you stated about the Supercouple article, I was wondering if you would not mind lending some suggestions on the talk page of that article about what you feel it needs work on. I have been fixing up that article since 2007 now, with additional words of wisdom from AniMate, and currently cannot see any true original research (OR) in it. I have gathered and read up on more academic stuff which discusses what supercouples are and criticism of them, soap opera supercouples in particular, and am planning on adding that to the article. I would appreciate your thoughts on improvements about this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose my biggest problem is that no concrete definition is offered -- making it very difficult to figure out precisely whether any given couple is a "super couple." Given that the term is almost exclusively used oin soap opera fan stuff, I am unsure that it intrinsically is notable. Google books seems to show it used in a number of disparate ways indeed, but quite frequently in the sense of two-income couples, rather than in the sense used in soap operas. Can you give a cite for a specific simple definition possibly? Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The essay in this book goes into detail about soap opera supercouples, but in a way that is more criticism than anything (which I do intend to add part of to the Supercouple article soon). And then there is also one of the most used references in the Supercouple article - this one - from Soap Opera Digest. I have other articles and such which mention how the term expanded to prime time and other genres and that, regarding fictional couples, it simply means a popular couple who is very well-known/praised within their medium, and especially one that has extended beyond it.

I get what you mean about the term mainly applying to soap opera couples. That was one of my main problems in writing the other sections (I am going to trim the Criticism section of Video game really soon). But the term is now very much used for celebrity supercouples as well. It is almost like two different definitions apply for each. For soap opera supercouples, the term means very popular couples have either taken over the soap opera medium where they are recognized as supercouples by most fans and critics, or expanded beyond the soap opera medium due to popularity (such as non-soap opera press; getting recognized by Entertainment Weekly and such), or both. Celebrity supercouples? Yep, I am not sure how to define them, except to point to couples such as the ones named in the Celebrity section of the Supercouple article - TomKat, Brangelina, etc. Those two articles are likely to get deleted one day, by the way, LOL (as you can surely guess). I just go by whatever valid sources I can use describing celebrity supercouples. We know that regarding both fiction and real-life couples, a supercouple is a combination of being very popular and fans/media seemingly being obsessed with the couple. The term is notable, I must state, considering the academic essays/studies about it and how it all started with Luke Spencer and Laura Webber; I just have to go to a good library to get more about it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I will rewrite a little of the article, such as the Definition section, as best I can with the sources I have...and then come back and ask you what you think about the changes if you do not mind. If you feel that I am being a bother, just let me know that, too, of course, LOL. I know that we sometimes do not want to be bothered because we have other things to attend to or whatever the reason. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. The aim is to make a genuine encyclopedia, after all. Collect (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is my newest version of the article. The changes are more significant than they are little; I realize that what a supercouple is may still not be as clear cut as you would like, but that is more due to their being different elements for the term and applying the term being somewhat subjective. However, I feel that the supercouple concepts for fiction and celebrity comes across clear enough (and clearer than before). I cannot figure out how to cut down on the Criticism section of Video game without cutting out important detail. Instead, I will just add additional references to that section, since it is currently going on a single source, unlike its main section. And, of course...I will continue to improve this article as long as I am still here at Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Taking shape for sure ... the best cites would be ones which use the term "supercouple" for sure. Collect (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks. I had to edit the Definition section again due to having forgotten that supercouples are sometimes platonic (and had to further tweak other parts of the article, as seen in that link), but it has turned out okay. As said, I will continue to work on the article. Thank you for all your help. Any other advice or criticism you can add, feel free to do so (of course). Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted offending material as requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)

Have deleted offending material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gigs (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

MedCabal Case

Hello! I have taken a mediation cabal case that has listed you as a party to a content dispute. Before we can proceed to a process of discussion and mediation, I need each party's confirmation that they are willing to proceed with the process to find a solution to end this problem.

Please indicate this approval, if given, on both my talk page and the case page that is linked above.

Cheers! -Reubzz (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

PR

Hi Collect, you left a comment a few days ago at the Prem Rawat talk page, commenting on my and Will's proposals to add some information. Could you explain what you meant? I wasn't really sure how much you thought would be sensible to add. (I'd wanted to add more from a source, Will less from the same source, and we were trying to meet in the middle somewhere.) Cheers, --JN466 00:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gladio

So what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe (talk • contribs) 19:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No relevance at all to the topic at hand. Collect (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism

Your comment at NOR is constructive. I think it would be better if, instead of providing a link to it, you actually posted the full comment on the judaism talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am avoiding a person who appears to be trying to "out" me, who has said he is tracking every edit I make. Collect (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

deletion/morozov

fyi two more sources credit Morozov as an "expert": Bloomberg [9] and Radio Free Europe [10]while The Economist called Morozov a "genius" [11]. I tried to point that out on the discussion page for the subject but since I don't have an account on Wikipedia it was deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.133.87 (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It is out of my hands what happens now to be sure (and I am pretty sure I disagree with him on a lot of stuff -- but that should have no bearing on his notability). Collect (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Daily Heil/Daily Wail/Daily Fail/Daily Propaganda

I looked up the creators of these redirects per your suggestion. Two of the editors are inactive and the one who isn't created the redirect over a year ago and hasn't created anything questionable since. My check did reveal one other RFD-able redirect by one of the inactive editors - Paultard, which hits the daily double as offensive to both Ron Paul supporters and the mentally challenged. I nominated it. --NellieBly (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out - I never thought to check, and I should have. Thanks again! --NellieBly (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

invitation

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Hello, Collect. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious...

I'd be curious to see what you think of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezero/Secret Page. I must admit that I was surprised to see that you haven't commented on it yet, as I keep seeing you sig on most of the MfDs that I've seen lately! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd Mfd?

I saw your comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KPS4Parents and before I even had a chance to see what was on the page in question, it was deleted under CSD#G11. It seems suspicious that in under an hour the page was deleted, do you mind explaining what all was on the page and if this may warrant a deletion review? Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 01:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have been a page describing a 401(c)3 non-profit group. It was not "spam" (which I interpret to mean multiple occurence of a blatant commercial message). WP:SPAM was clearly not applicable to this userspace example. One page, non-commercial, made it to MfD in precisely one minute, and closed by one who !voted delete as opposed to an uninvolved person. I suggested that the person be told the username was not acceptable, and that the content be move to his new userspace, but the delete was extremely quick. Collect (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in--I agree, that was a little too quick. Was it Triplestop's judgment that this was spam that sealed the deal? I think both the nominator and the closing administrator were much too quick on the draw. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed, there is no doubt his username was in violation of WP:UN but as I've been advocating for some time now, a work page is a work page even if it is not well sourced. It would have been better, if the user was warned first instead of blocked and have their page deleted simultaneously. I'm thinking deletion review? -Marcusmax(speak) 01:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol Drmies I run into you everywhere, this is very confusing to me as you know I am a very policy oriented person and this is the 3rd or 4th mfd to close quickly and under the wrong WP:CSD criteria. In this case it is time to get into contact Triplestop or go to DRV. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Deletion review is usually an exercise in futility -- as long as an admin quotes a g-number, the presumption is that the deletion was proper. The name is a clear problem, but it was not WP:SPAM by any stretch. And you will find me often saying that a few words with a new user are better than simply pointing fingers at them. WP is already losing editors at a great rate - keeping new ones from even starting is not wise. In my opinion, of course. Collect (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile the user is now blocked -- meaning this is a clear case of not only biting a new user, but doing our best to pour salt in the wound. Collect (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay I understand your viewpoint but I never even had a chance to read the userpage and I know something is up, and Drmies also shared this view, it is quite possible many will also at DRV. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this deletion was in violation of WP:DPR#NAC I quote, "Non-administrators should not close "delete" decisions at all, as they lack the technical ability to actually delete pages." and in this case because one did they must, "where an administrator has deleted a page but forgotten to close the discussion, his or her name and deletion summary should be included in the closing rationale." -Marcusmax(speak) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, the definition of spam includes "public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." Given the username, it was pretty clear that the intent was to "tell readers how great something is." Probably the block message should have been, rather than spam-only, a username block. The horse may be out, but the barn door is fixed now—the block message has been changed (the block was soft all along).

Second, in my comment at the MfD, I indicated that the speedy delete was in process at that point. To that end, the non-admin close was just the clerical result of the action I had already taken. I had not forgotten to close the deletion; it was closed before I looped back to close it.

If I had it to do over again, I might have tagged the article {{db-spam}} and seen how the user replied. Based on experience, they usually just remove the tag and keep on editing the page. I do think the end result would be the same: page deleted, user soft blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Areas for Reform states that treatment of new editors is a major issue. As for "promoting" a non-profit organization on a user page -- if that is WP:SPAM, I am amazed. There are actual articles on non-profits which should be deleted then. And, of course, all personal c.v.s in userspace are then spam. As I choose to use the logical position -- that spam refers to commercial exploitation of WP, this userpage can not be spam. Moree than five hundred userpages promote the "Red Cross." More than two thousand refer to a "non-profit." More than four hundred refer to "my company" or "our company." And this non-profit was essentially told "go away and never come back" with a total of eight minutes. A new record. Collect (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:UP#NOT lists that definition as an "example" not policy although I never saw the content myself so I could not say if it was or was not. I see issues with WP:BITE, only a few minutes after creating the page they had it deleted and were blocked simultaneously with limited warning, advice or guidance. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

<--Every time I consider placing a speedy template somewhere, I think of WP:NEWT. Reading those adventures actually made me much more aware of how bitey we sometimes are, and I would have liked to have seen this particular process handled more slowly. No one else, for instance, got the opportunity to help this user out. BTW Marcus, in regards to your earlier remark, I'm just stalking you. ;) Drmies (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have posed a question on Wikipedia Talk:SPAM (the guideline talk page) concerning non-profits and spam. Collect (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have requested the page be userfied: User:Ikip/User:KPS4Parents or emailed to me so I can see the page myself. Interesting case. Ikip (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you feel that a non-profit userpage which makes no "commercial" statements, qualifies as "spam"? Anyone feel that way? Collect (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

How can a non-profit organization be "commercial" as CSD#G12 focuses on, there obviously was a COI but a new user doesn't know any better. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

On the WP:SPAM talk page, the argument is made that anything which in any way "promotes" an organization is automatically spam. Unless and until the view on that page is altered, this is a non-win case. Near as I can tell, though, every single mention of an organization on WP may be deletable speedily as spam <g>. And WP is losing new editors at an amazing rate. Collect (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's sad we are losing editors at such an alarming rate, and things like give you a hint as to why. I hope Ikip gets a copy of that page because I definitely want to see what is on it, as long as the person is not like this example example, "KPS4Parents is my organization in Camarillo, California and we are good at what we do, visit us at KPS4Parents.com for more info" then I don't see how it is promoting an organization. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am prepared to go to DRV right now if you guys think we should? We can sit here and chat all day but if we don't make a stand then this opportunity will quickly slip away. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I requested the page here: User_talk:Bigtimepeace#Hi_Big

Gentlemen, it often doesn't matter what the policy says, it matters who has the largest network of friends. In addition, DRV tends to attract a much higher ratio of editors who support deletion than regular pages. Ikip (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't then, I trust your opinion 100% Ikip. Hopefully the page gets userfied! -Marcusmax(speak) 03:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've userfied the material per Ikip's request, see User:Ikip/User:KPS4Parents. Based on a quick Google News search I highly doubt this group is notable enough for an article, but it won't do any harm to work on it userspace if someone wants to. The person who nominated the user page for MfD and the admin who deleted were far, far too quick to bite a new editor in my view. When this kind of thing happens, leave a note for the user first and discuss the issue with them. It doesn't waste the time of other editors like an MfD does, and maybe you will be able to explain how editing on Wikipedia works such that they contribute positively. Given the rapid succession of unfriendly warning, deletion of user page, block of account, additional unfriendly warning, one would not be surprised if the person who created User:KPS4Parents is now done with Wikipedia. Maybe they were just here to promote a non-notable org, but then again maybe the did want to contribute and were starting with what they knew. It genuinely pains me to see the operator of a brand new account treated in this fashion, regardless of the viability of the material they are trying to include. We need to be encouraging new editors, not showing them the door five minutes after their first edit and leaving it there simply because the don't understand our policies. The extra time it takes to try to explain how things work to a new editor, even if it ends up with no results because they are not here in good faith, is well worth it in the end. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with bigtimepeace, this organization needs more sources to avoid deletion:

User_talk:Ikip/User:KPS4Parents

This is all I found.

I would suggest emailing the organization asking for news articles. They would know better than anyone.

if you guys would like this article in your user space, you are welcome to move it. [simply move it to User:Collect/User:KPS4Parents, for example] Otherwise I will eventually delete it.

Thanks bigtimepeace! Ikip (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Collect, if you object to cases like this then please see Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention where hundreds of these cases are processed rountinely. See also Category:Wikipedians_who_are_indefinitely_blocked_for_promotional_user_names, which is populated by much the same cases like this. Triplestop x3 23:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am quite concerned by some of the latest newspaper articles on WP, and the fact that we can make some of the iffiest cases be handled differently, to be sure. Collect (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that many people think that they can add a page for themselves by posting it under a userpage using an account that represents the company, which is problematic for many reasons. Most of these people don't bother to read the stuff we have written for them nor do they pay attention to that orange bar at the top of the screen. I dare say that some of them are also probably spam bots. There isn't much we can do about this, however all messages used clearly tell the user what they can do next. Triplestop x3 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that new users are not really given sufficiently clear instructions that they should not use anything other than a vanilla username. No idea if many bots are used -- there are so many "alternate personas" on WP it is not funny. I think we should be careful that we do not simply toss the baby out with the bathwater. WP needs as many new editors as it can get. And you should note that I generally feel templates are not as good as personal messages <g>. Collect (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism

You created sections on the talk page to facilitate discussion. I ask you to remove them. In the section above, I provide my general views on the situation including why I don't think what you did was helpful. Collect, I know that what you did was in good faith, and under other circumstances would in fact be very constructive. Right now I think people on the talk page are wrangling with two specific conflicts, and they are already in separate sections, and we should just give people time - in both sections - to work out what they want. In these cases, i think conflict perdures because only two people care, if more people who watch the article weighed in i bet a consensu sone way or another would emerge. Unless more people get involved I personally woulod say that there is not enough weight to support a change. Anyway, i explained my reasoning in the section above the subsections you created. Do whatever you think best. read what I wrote there and if you agree, remove the subsections you created, if you think I am wrong, leave the subsections you created. All i can ask you is to consider my reasoning and then act as you see best. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to avoid formal mediation as much as possible by making sure we know precisely where the disagreements are first. The usual course is, indeed, to try separating things out. At this point, it looks like the sections are working for their intended purpose. If we can iron out one issue at a time this way, we will be well ahead of the game. If it does not work, we are no worse off than we were with the free-form discussions which have gne on. Will you bear with me for a couple of days, please? Collect (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I added a number of third party RS refs today to the Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis) article (the subject of the AfD that you've participated in). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Of Interest?

Check out my new subpage, User:Marcusmax/Newbie Treatment at mfd and feel free to add information at anytime. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

William Timmons addition reverted

I took undid your addition, as I didn't understand how to fix it; please note that in English grammar, "which" always refers to the immediately preceding noun phrase, so I'm pretty sure you left it not meaning what you intended. Maybe you can point out what the source says about resolutions and we can find a better way to phrase it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please undo your undoing. My mom was a Latin teacher, and the usage was correct. The source makes clear that there was no attempt by Timmons to evade the resolutions. If you prefer your own grammar "I took undid" then use it, but restore the meaning of the addition. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

All scientists are sceptics

Well said! Being a sceptic to scientist is a bit like being called a "fitness freak" to a footballer or a "fashion conscious" to a model. It is the very nature of a scientist to be a sceptic, and it just shows how little those who decry the sceptics know of science that they think it is a label any real scientists would not wear with pride! 88.109.63.241 (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I was trained as a scientist (Physics) and the whole idea is that where no one is a sceptic, no one will ever discover anything new. Collect (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

MfD

I think the comment you left here indicates you think I made a bad faith nomination. This conversation shows the lengths I went to in order to avoid having to do an MfD. I ask you to reconsider your words in light of this information, and assume good faith on my part. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a good faith nom, but one which is a "no win" nom. Collect (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

All I want is for the user to slightly alter the statement so that it doesn't disparage fellow editors. An MfD process, however doomed to failure, will at least attract a few more eyeballs from editors who might be able to persuade the user to tweak that text. If the text is changed, I'd be happy to support a snowball close as keep. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Note the change made. I do feel that this userpage is better left untouched than given notoriety. Collect (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifying comment. Totally respect your opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

BIAW

Please see the article's talk section.  kgrr ^talk 01:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report

A summary of the community's comments on our WP:Edit warring policy will be featured in the Policy Report in next Monday's Signpost, and you're invited to participate. Monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009, and it may help to look at previous policy surveys at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost, WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost or WT:U#Signpost Policy Report. There's a little more information at WT:Edit warring#Signpost Policy Report. I'm not watchlisting here, so if you have questions, feel free to ask there or at my talk page. Thanks for your time. (P.S. Your edit to WT:3RR, which was merged into this page, was months ago, but we haven't had much participation in the survey so far this week.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Pompeia

It does sometimes feel like one is casting pearls before swine. We have such a great treasure-house of phrases and allusions in English, I do regret that so few people seem to know or care about them. DuncanHill (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Rather than greeting-spam everyone (humbug!)

May each and everyone reading this have a Joyous and Merry Christmas!

May faith guide you and comfort you throughout the year, and may this next year be one of prosperity, health and happiness for all!

Collect (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for being such an awesome User! Here is a little holiday "present" for you. Also, in the spirit of the season, would you be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights? --AFriedman (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed! Collect (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The lede of Judaism

Hi, I've finally gotten around to editing the lede. I'm trying to incorporate the ideas you proposed some time ago, about Jewish denominations. Would you like to come around and look at it? --AFriedman (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably not til next year <g>. Collect (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Confused about your recent RFA decision

I was surprised to see you support in this recent RFA, since you seem like such a strong supporter of editors contributions.

Please consider the oppose views. Thanks. Ikip 01:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I supported Ironholds in his RfA -- he valued comments I made in an MfD about reasonable procedures, and has, to my knowledge, abided by them. I think that making reasoned comments works better than viewing anyone as a foe. In some cases I think folks you once regarded as allies have, in fact, been far from allies in maintaining reasoned and consistent approaches to valid deletion and keep discussions. So I would take it as a favor if you considered my support of Ironholds, and consider supporting his RfA. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification of WP:NOR/N item for discussion of Mass killings under Communist regimes

You may be particularly interested in WP:NOR/N#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes to discuss article SYNTH issues with uninvolved editor experts. There's space for a summary argument to claim that the article isn't SYNTH which you might like to provide, and to ensure we get uninvolved editor contributions I separated involved and uninvolved editor comment sections. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

David Copperfield discussion redact

I'll ask Ratel to redact his comments, but will you do the same...and first? Or, if you both agree, let me ask an uninvolved admin to remove anything unrelated to the discussion. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 21:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Struckout last comment on DC page. Someday I would love to see Ratel redact his charges about my sanity <g> which he has made a few dozen times now. Collect (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Am I getting this confused with refactoring? And I think striking through some comments isn't going to remove the distraction. You both have valid points that aren't based on your ongoing disagreements, but other editors may not see that and discount or ignore both arguments. Flowanda | Talk 22:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion coming -- but many editors seem to think that deletion is wrong on AT pages. In any event, if I delete, I would like to see all of Ratel's attacks deleted as well. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Also note recalcitrance per [12]. I think your good offices may need to be a tad more forceful there. Collect (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, what's it going to take to stop you stalking me? I have ample evidence of it, and you know you're doing it. Why not stop this harassment campaign and stay off the handful of pages I habitually edit? These clashes occur in identical fashion every few months. What are you achieving by it? ► RATEL ◄ 23:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I not only am not stalking you, I have never stalked you, and I am rather tired of your making the same charge on every page you can. I have edited well over fifteen hundred different articles. Our intersection is eight articles. Or about .5% overlap. My intersection with Wikidemon is twelve articles. About .8% overlap. Might that convince you of anything? Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, please, I have never knowingly started editing a page on which you are an habitual and established regular editor (AFAIK). But you have done that to me on many pages, always directly editing sections in which I am involved in a dispute, and always to take the opposing side, no matter what the merits. Now I only edit about 40 pages. How about we agree not to edit pages on which the other editor is active? Can you do that? Show goodwill here and your protestations of innocence will carry more weight. ► RATEL ◄ 14:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that coincidence is possible when the overlap is 8 articles out of SIXTEEN HUNDRED articles I have edited? Your edit history shows about EIGHT HUNDRED articles. The percentage overlap is trivial. My overlap with THF is 25, or more than three times the overlap with you. I have, in fact, a smaller overlap with you than with most other active editors. Collect (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What was I thinking, asking you for a good faith undertaking? I may as well get used to the fact that you will poke your obnoxious nose into every argument I get into on WP, forever. ► RATEL ◄ 04:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL please. A one half of one percent overlap is pretty trivial, but you seem intent on making comments about me which are inapt and uncivil in many places, whereas I make no attempt at all to find you. Perhaps that should indicate the truth of the matter, indeed. Meanwhile, I ask that you make no further posts to this usertalk page whatever. Collect (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA

I've never closed an AfD—I was an admin for 2.5 years and never closed a single one. I'm simply not interested in doing it. In any case, I'm not going to act contrary to policy under any circumstances. Everyking (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My position must, perforce, be based on what you wrote about XfDs -- and since we are determining who can do something, the requirement for any prudent person is to examine how potential acts might be affected. Clearly we have no personal conflicts at all. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello again

RE: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Congratulations your proposal against BLP changes is the most popular. You may want to add:

'''Addendum:''' [[Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse|Wikipedia:Petition against Ignore all rules abuse]]

As I just did too my section. Ikip 00:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

I hope that we can someday become friends. As you have said many times before, it seems like we have more in common than not. When I scrambled my password I note that your comment that if I were to leave, to paraphrase: I would come back and "target you". I am sorry you feel that way, it simply is not the case. I later found a loop hole by emailing myself a new password, so I am back.

What happened last year, happened last year. Although you may feel I have a lot of animosity toward you, I don't. In fact I see our disagreement on Business Plot as a positive experience which led to several epiphanies. One was to see articles three dimensionally. Although many of the edits I added are gone from the main page, they still exist, and always will exist in the page history and the talk page. I will never have a 3rr violation on an article again, and I have you and Ted to thank for this.

Your RFC was unfortunate. The RFC was minor to me, in that I have had so many more traumatic experiences here. Looking back on my four years here, your RFC isn't even in the top 50. So I would never come back and "target you". But I do understand as the subject of the RFC, it was major for you.

I just want to clear the air a bit, so we can hopefully move forward on saving articles together. I respect so much that you do.

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		"The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes." This barnstar is awarded to Collect for his inspiring words at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Thank you for defending the principles we all hold dear. Ikip 02:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Et tu?" - please clarify what you mean

Collect, your comment "Et tu?" at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes seems to indicate that I am myself guilty of the same error that I am accusing Termer of. Since this is in effect an accusation of disruptive editing a personal accusation, I would like you to clarify how I am obstructing constructive discussion - or if that was not what you meant, please clarify what you did mean. Please answer me there. Thanks. --Anderssl (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

edit count list of editors on a page?

I'm interested in doing more research on your recentl comment on the BLP RFC - the one where you bracket editors to the rfc by list of edits. How did you pull down that list? Hipocrite (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at every name I had never run across, and did the edit count <g>. It takes a while, to be sure. When I found a single-edit account, I suspected it was not a real newbie. Indeed, it is very rare for new users to opine at this sort of page when they have fewer than a thousand edits, but that would make the numbers too high! (And if you delete minor edits, which may sometimes be used to boost edit counts, I suspect that the number of "alternate personas" may be well over 40 on the one page!) If we also look at suddenly returning editors, who number over a dozen, I fear the CANVASS may extend to well over fifty of the participants. Collect (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Shit, I was suspecting that was how you did it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a list of interesting accounts? I am failing at this dramatically, and I would like to get to the bottom of the problem. Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To prevent any possible claim of NPA, I would prefer not. Look, however, at names not usually found at any BLP discussions in the past. Collect (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that we are on diametricaly opposite sides of this issue I don't see any possible personal attack in listing a users who you believe do not typically edit BLP discussions - one might argue not being on the list is a personal attack, but I'll try to slog through it again. I assume the suspects to which you refer are in the support area of the most popular option. Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, I would not leap to that conclusion. I suspect that appreciable CANVASS occurred and/or interesting newbies appeared. BTW, I doubt we are diametrically opposed -- I am a firm believer in enforcing rigorously procedures to protect BLPs from having any controversial or contentious material. I am also a believer that it is the community here which establishes the procedures. Collect (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Figgered it out - almost all of the questionable editors appear to be in one or more wikiprojects that was ikiped. Hipocrite (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Exclusive invitation

Collect, Wikipedia:Wikiproject new user welcome wants you!

We are currently asking for concrete, constructive proposals on how to avoid the deletion of 48,000 articles created by 17,500 editors through sourcing. These constructive proposals will then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Wikipedia:Wikiproject new user welcome << For now, participation on this userpage is by inviation only.

Ikip 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violation of clearly posted 1RR restrictions at Mass killings under Communist regimes. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 21:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|An attempt to add information in an effort to reach a middle ground should reasonably be allowed. I regret fully violating the 1RR placed on that page, and would gently note that Paul Siebert actually reverted twice as well. My talk page edit on 19 Jan ended up quite below the notice, so I did not really note it. I would suggest that it (and all similar notices and restrictions) be placed in a template at the head of the article and talk page to avoid any future misapprehensions. Thank you. Collect (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)}}

There is a nice editnotice which even attracts your attention with a bright red "Attention!" that you see whenever you try to edit the article. Do you intend to refrain from edit warring on the article in the future? NW (Talk) 21:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, yes I missed it.(to your first question -- I surely did not intend nor will I intend any edit war) The notice would be better placed before one hits "edit" IMHO. The notice on the talk page is, again IMHO, not really prominent at all. I had not counted that trying to reach a proper inclusion of material from a book review as being a revert (I did not repeatedly remove any editor's edits) my initial edits were primarily to add references with quotes (16:21 to 16:27) , although it may well be one (first edits in a while are not generally counted as reverts - the material had been there a while). As I had no connection with any of the EEML stuff, I let the matter elide my attention. At 18:20 I did a revert, then at 20:10 I did not affect any of Siebert's text, but added material he had reverted. It shall not recur. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I do not buy your excuse that you did not see the big warning at the top of the page when you go to edit it. While I unblocked your account, I would have liked to have seen you step up to the plate and admit you were wrong instead of trying to wikilawyer. Tiptoety ^talk 22:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)