User:Collect/archive 12

Your AE Filing
You need to use this form to submit a new issue. I closed the old one but you are free to copy and paste from it to start a new one. --WGFinley (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried - kept getting nowhere. Thanks - please try to restart it, as I do not have the patience to get the template to work. The instructions state that as long as the information is there, that it was valid.   Collect (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't provide all the information such as that he was notified, what remedy you were looking for etc. Using the template is a rather easy cut and paste affair, if you don't use it it's impossible for admins to review your request.  As the instructions state "Your request may be declined without further action if you provide insufficient or unclear information."  Which is what I did.  So please, either use the template (easy) or submit all the information that is in the template so that your request can be evaluated.  And please don't add on to something that's been closed again.  --WGFinley (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The notification was on his page (multiple times) as well as on the article page itself - which is noted in the filing.  The Digwuren sanctions are what I am seeking - as it states. The Diffs are provided. What more can I do? I spent a good half an hour trying to make the template work and failed. Sorry about that - but ignoring the problem as a result is a tad silly, no? Collect (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will create a new entry for you so that it's there you will need to fill it out. --WGFinley (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please include as much from my initial filing as possible - I do not want TFD to find a comma missing . Collect (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually started a new one for you, you can cut and paste from your original to that one. --WGFinley (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have filed the request, it is very much like the CC probation one mark nutley (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now co-signed, and diffs given as requested. Collect (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

white out
Hi Collect, tiresome indeed. I had a white out (major comp failure) up and running again now. I see the issue and actually it is annoying but there is only policy and guidelines that will be effective in creating a balanced article. Against strongly opinionated contributors with a single purpose those guidelines and policies are weak and ineffectual, drawing the attention of uninvolved NPOV editors is helpful. Off2riorob (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I had Windows XP a while back and sympathize . Seems that the ones who make fifty edits in a row on any article are an order of magnitude more likely to engage in such behavior .   It does boost their "edit count" though. Collect (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Crist
ec.I don't know if you are still following the BLPN discussion but I have (boldly) added a concise version of the content, here. I felt less would be close to censorship and felt a simple neutral uninvolved comment was the way to go, if you have any objections feel free to remove it and discuss, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much in line with my proposal earlier. (heck - the original edit I made was just to replace "homosexuality" with "sexual orientation" ! which got reverted) Thanks. Collect (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Boldness
I'd like to believe I'm as bold as the next guy, but even I'd think twice before making 18k of changes to a mature topic. Bold is good, cautious may be even better. Conservative best?  Will Beback   talk    11:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a lot of duplicated material in Crist - and an article is not really "mature" when much is less than three months old to be sure. And a lot was actual simple copyediting as well. Thanks.  (Um -- in another aticle, one person deleted 55% of the article (60k+) in one swoop which I did feel was a bit much). Collect (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was started in 2004, though I'm sure it's had major changes since then. I'm not complaining about anything you did - just surprised to see such a sweeping revision in a single edit.   Will Beback    talk    20:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem - some stuff was iterated several times. Last straw was folks confusing "Independent" with "unaffiliated" for ballot lines . Collect (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Carl Paladino
This was sourced. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The claims were not founded in the cite. WP:BLP is not a joke -[ and saying that a man posted a picture of a woman having sex with a horse when a RELIABLE SOURCE does not make that claim is quite a major violation of WP:BLP.  Collect (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll accept that, as I didn't check the source, but there are reliable sources out there which make the same claims. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See this version of the article, which got deleted despite being reliably sourced. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Look back to my edit where I stated "improper emails" which is all the reliable sources actually claim. I am also quite unsure that bringing a child into the BLP is proper under [WP:BLP]] but I don;t recall who added it. Collect (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're saying, that the sources are not reliable, or that they don't spell out what the emails were? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RS and WP:BLP paying close attention to "contentious or poorly sourced material." Collect (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I know what RS and BLP say. What I am saying, and which you seem to be dancing around, is that the material is not poorly sourced.  Why do you keep contending that it is?  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not the only one pointing out that"sex with a horse" is a "contentious claim" at best.  Beyond contentious. The source is grossly insufficient for the claim. WP:BLP requires removal of such stuff. Collect (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to claim that CBS News is not a reliable source? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * CBS uses "reportedly" which is not a strong enough commitment that CBS backs the claim at all. In fact, it is used to cover "rumor" which is also not permitted in BLPs. Sorry - this is something which has now been discussed more than enough. Please cease posting on this page.  Collect (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

EL list
You made a reference to "EL list" here. Can you tell me what it is?-- SPhilbrick  T  16:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "EL" is short for "External links" - see WP:EL Collect (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Screwball23 at ANI noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Cleaning up the advocacy section on the David Koch page
Collect, I have some suggestions on the Advocacy section of the [David Koch] page that I have made on the talk page. I have gotten some pushback that has been rhetorical, but not really on substance. Basically, I want to fill out the information about Koch's involvement in boards. I feel like the current information is elided in a way that creates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues. Would love your thoughts. MBMadmirer (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are sme substantial BLP issues on all the Koch pages if you read Jimbo Wales' comments on his user talk page (see "silly season" sections from a week or so back). Collect (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Do you think that my changes could be ok? If I put the final formating on a page in my userspace, would you be willing to look at it and consider moving it over? I think this should be fine, but I want to be respectful of Arjuna's issues. Thanks MBMadmirer (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Post suggestions on the Koch talk page I think Arjuna will actually be careful with any BLP issues raised, as is appropriate.  And note that if anyone directly associated with Koch files a WP:OTRS report, that functionaries with "powers beyong those of mortal men" will edit the article. Collect (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just posted my suggestion there with a lot more detail. Would really appreciate your thoughts. The actual text, with full references, that I am recommending is here: User:MBMadmirer/David H. Koch. MBMadmirer (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, I have made another proposed edit here: Talk:David_H._Koch. No one has responded to the proposal. I think that you might have WP:BLP sympathies to both, but I don't feel comfortable moving forward without discussion. Thanks! MBMadmirer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

RFC on vandalism sandboxes
As someone who previously participated in the discussion to adopt policy verbiage that is being used as a rationale to delete "vandalism sandboxes", your input would be appreciated on the matter: Wikipedia talk:User pages. Gigs (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

AN/I statement
Actually, MuZemike seems to indicate the opposite of what you infer: " As far as WP:CLEANSTART is concerned, I felt that it was OK for him to edit with the BErD account. Now if the community (or another CheckUser) feels that he is trying to avoid scrutiny, I certainly understand that, and that is a valid point." (emphasis mine). The terms of cleanstart also support such, as even MuZemike pointed out.

That aside, in attempting to assume good faith (yet again), I've proposed remedies that consist largely of doing nothing unless blatant repeat behavior occurs (or unless this is a rogue admin). Perhaps you may wish to review them and provide counter suggestions or provide your support. I feel it may be a proposal you would support. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 19:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Absent a finding from MuZemike that anything is amiss, I suggest that remedies based on fishing results are not a great idea. Collect (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I suspect you didnt read my proposed remedies (as I know BErD is acting like he didnt) :-). I proposed to do nothing over all' previous actions (other account or this one), complimented them twice in my proposal, and ensured that an allowance for honest mistakes was included in it. Contrary to BErD's claims, I've tried assuming good faith and look out for them (based on their proven ability to contribute non disruptively and without trolling - when they want to). I think I've done so again in my proposal. As I said, I think it's a proposal you may support. :-) R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 20:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But you asked for the fishing expedition to be made - which is where I demur. Collect (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, perhaps you are misunderstanding what I have proposed? I am proposing the AN/I be ended the way I have suggested, as stated above, having nothing to do with previous actions, even though cleanstart (and the current consensus at AN/I) clearly support such. I'm asking for an end to the AN/I with my proposal, and not more scrutiny (even if deserved). Hope that clarifies. R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 22:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh! Perhaps you are nor realizing I have made a new proposal? This is not my initial proposal. This is a new one intended to hopefully end the AN/I without the permanent or indef block others are requesting. Sorry I wasnt more clear in my initial message. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 22:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Will check it out. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Screwball23 ANI post
I've added a comment. I don't know whether it's strictly required, but I'm informing you of it since the thread had previously been marked as "resolved" by another user. BTW, please remember to inform users when you comment about them there. I don't know whether Screwball32 might have seen your post if you'd done so, and thus have had time to respond before he was blocked, but it's possible. – OhioStandard  (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I had, fort some odd reason, assumed Screwball23 knew about the ongoing concerns since the prior section was so recent. On another board I was criticized for not tacking on to an earlier report . Seems I can't win. Collect (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, Collect! I know you're following my edits, but I thought I'd save you the trouble of looking. I've just posted here, and I expect you'll want to have your say. I think I won't post a rejoinder, unless you're unusually agressive in misrepresenting my motives or statements, so if you're relatively moderate there, you'll be welcome to have the last word. Best regards,  –  OhioStandard  (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I do not follow anyone's edits at all. Collect (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(UTC+1) |3= HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)}}
 * Unfortunately, King hasn't specified where the alleged edit warring took place in the block log or here, which makes it difficult to evaluate the merit of the block. Thus, I've put your request on hold pending comment from him. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a fine line between vandalism, BLP violation, and a factual dispute; your edits so far have not shown that you understand this. However, if you agree to limit yourself to one revert per week (excepting only self-reverts and vandalism that can be detected by a bot) on Linda McMahon and Carl Paladino, I will unblock you. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done (excepting clear vandalism) until after political "silly season" has ended. I wish you had noted my repeated use of BLP/N for all the questions, as well as my use of article talk pages for all the matetrial involved. Collect (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

diffs please
Will anyone looking at my recent edits please tell me where I "edit warred" at all? I fear this is a "punishment" made because one editor kept saying I edit warred without having the courtesy to notify me nor to provide diffs of the accusation anywhere on WP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like its related to this discussion at Administrator King of Hearts talkpage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:King_of_Hearts#Good_call.2C_but_incomplete and to edits made over five days ago on the Linda McMahon articles. Personally I don't think this is a correct block if it is about that issue, if King of Hearts after looking in depth at the issue there though he was wrong to only block one side then after five days a note to inform the user of such a realization is imo the correct decision to take and not a dated editing restriction.Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I never hit 3RR on any page, never got any warnings, never was told why this block occurred, and my edits sure were not in any sense "edit war."  And without telling me what is going on, or any indication that any diffs were provided, his block goes against WP policies and procedures.  And if he was wroing to block Screwball23, then it is wrong to block me at this point - it looks like "punishment" which is a grossly improper reason for any block.   Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Collect, the block notice says it's for disruption, not 3rr as such. One can be blocked for disruption following, say, a slow and tendentious edit war without even reaching 2r/day. This said, the block log itself says it's for edit warring. I think you might want to think about taking down your unblock template straight away, then asking the blocking admin for more input on why the block was made (article(s), contribs and so on) and then, if you want to appeal the block, put up a new UBT which deals with whatever you were blocked for. You can't get this block lifted until you know what it's about. I think this needs more input from the blocking admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No diffs were given. No warning was given. I ask that you examine the actual edits I made - and note than I never got past 2RR, and my total edits on Linda McMahon in the past two  weeks are 20:11 2 Oct  where I removed unsourced "In 2010 there have ben rumors that wwe will end the PG rating and go back to the TV-14 rating." Proper edit. 15:04 1 Oct  where I used the figure given in the source. Proper edit. My total edits ever on that article are 20.  No tendentiousness there at all.


 * May not be that article, don't know. I'd already sent the blocking admin an email, asking for more input here, since you don't seem to understand why the block was made (and hence, can't meaningfully appeal it). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Now if you go all the way back to 16 September (over two weeks ago) : 16 Sept where I unwikilinked duplicate wikilinks. I did hit 2RR on 16 September. Stale when you have to go back more than 2 weeks to even find a 2RR, I suggest.  And going back further, not even a 2RR for one to use. And those reverts were founded on WP:BLP in the first place. How can you call that a "slow and tenentious edit war"? Really? Collect (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did ask on the Administrators talkpage for a bit more in depth explanation as to his reasons for the block. Off2riorob (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I made so few edits that giving me an "edit war" label without solid material to back the claim seems odd at best.  Collect (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, you have a history of edit warring, so any reverts you perform will be viewed with additional scrutiny. Moreover, a "warning" IMO is anything that makes you realize there is a chance you could be blocked if you continue with your actions; OhioStandard's posts on both of our talk pages constitutes a warning, so it's not like you didn't know this could happen. On Carl Paladino, you first reinserted the "allegedly" on September 20, and proceed to do so again on September 30; more recently, you removed the "undue" incident once on October 1, and again on October 2. On Linda McMahon, you have a long history of editing and edit warring on the page, and probably would have been blocked if Malinaccier hadn't protected the page on September 17; your October 1 and October 2 edits are inadvisable due to your history on that page, but I'm not really concerned with those since the things you reverted are borderline vandalism. Therefore the main motivation for the current block was your final edit to Carl Paladino. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I buy two reverts in two days as disruptive edit warring. Moreover, the combination of low speed and non-explicit warnings are concerning. Certainly, the articles in question attract people writing for differing political agendas, but I'm not aware of any specific sanctions/enforcement which apply to these articles at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir - my "history of edit warring" was basically two years ago. 20 total edits on a page [Linda McMahon]] which another editor has over 800 edits does not seem to me to show anything near an edit war. So I am surprised to see your rationale is the Carl Paladino page! is a legitimate edit, and not actionable at all. is also proper, and a day earlier. I have a grand total of 28 edits on that page, or an average or just over an edit a day also removing clear vandalism as well). But you blocked me without any indication of my crime, and were absent for quite a while - leaving me in limbo.  Frankly, 72 hours for a person who has no recent edit war problems seems extreme.   And for this use of block as punishment - I have doubts as to propriety thereof.  Did you block because Ohiostandard kept asserting that I was edit warring?  AFAICT, he never even posted a single diff for his charge. Thank you - now can I be unblocked so I can resume normal editing?  My radiation treatment limits my activities quite a bit.  Oh - look at this sort of "editor" I have had to face at,  and a favorite example to show the kind of edits I reverted on the article. Collect (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This looks like a bad block, and even worse when I read the explaination from the admin. Is there any "history/involvement" per say with the blocking admin? --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

WRT asserting that Ohiostandard 'warned me" - he never edited on the Paladino article, nor mentioned it to me. Right now the block is clearly punitive, and I respectfully request it be removed with a note that it was not "edit war" on my part. I do not see the point in having a clear record for nearly two years - and then being blocked for a 1RR because someone "thinks" I must be watched! The only connection I have with Ohiostandard is that he did not like my post about Screwball23. Collect (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Examples of current edits from others : . And of course the current content of " '''Content of the emails in question includes video of dancing African tribesmen under the title "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal", a video titled "Miss France 2008 Fucking", an altered image of President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama dressed as a pimp and a prostitute, an image of a cargo plane landing in an African desert behind a group of panicked men titled "Run, Niggers, Run!" and a video portraying a woman engaged in copulation with a horse.' For some odd'' reason, I had thought this was actually improper on WP. I take it that I was wrong if reverting such edits is "edit war." Collect (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

precipitating edit
is where the "warning" exists, I assume? First of all, I do not have any "preferred candidates" at all. I edit on Dems, Reps, Independents with exactly the same concerns as for any BLP. Anyone is free to accuse me of backing Alex Sink or anyone else where WP:TABLOID exists and I remove scurrilous or lewd accusations. Thanks. Note nicely that Paladino is not mentioned in this "warning". Collect (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Speeding tickets
John Doakes of Hallandale FL was issued a speeding ticket for going 60mph in a 70mph zone. When he asked the policeman, he was tol;d it ewas because he had gotten two speeding tickets last year, and this was "preventative." (Aesop) Collect (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Collect, if I was you I would delete your previous unblock request now that you have been informed in detail of the reasons for the blocking and I would take what the Administrator has said on board and make a decent unblock request addressing his issues. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * His issue is that it is "preventative" to block a person for a relative handful of edits over a month, and where 2RR has not been exceeded, on the basis that he needs to give me a speeding ticket when I was not speeding. And not having the courtesy to respond to me for most of a day. The sole edit he cites, moreover, is proper under WP:BLP.   I assert that it is not a valid use of blocks to issue such a ticket.  He also asserted that Ohiostandard "warned" me - but OS has never even appeared on the Paladino page, meaning the admin, sua sponte, looked for a reason to block.  Unfortunately, he found one which is not a reason to block.  I don;t know what issues are there except that "edit war" was not present. Collect (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As HJ left an on hold note on your unblock request, I have left him a note to request if he can   re-review the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm willing to unblock you if you agree to avoid the article for a few days and to make a point of seeking discussion on talk pages at the earliest possible stage in any future dispute. This shouldn't be taken as an endorsement or a rejection of the original block. Sound reasonable? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. I see King has unblocked you. I've cleared your autoblock so all should be fine. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I repeatedly used noticeboards, I have no idea why this blew up.  shows clearly that I sought other opinions on the Paladino article. But this got elided in the rush to assert "edit war."  shows me using the proper noticeboard on McMahon. So much for the charge of "edit war."  BTW, OS, you are now disinvited to post on this page.  I trust this is clear. Collect (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Carl Paladino
Collect,

Please review more carefully. There were various problems with the previous revisions of the controvery section which have been corrected. Those changes include: better sourcing, on-going/long-term discussion (not news), and no more links to youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.59.112 (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again - your venue is the article talk page. I simply declined an edit under "pending revisions" as something which would need discussion there. Collect (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about (lack of ) list of RS
I have a question about Reliable Sources. It may be that I should ask this at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but I wanted to run it by you first (I don't know that we've interacted, but I've seen your work, and I know you hang out at the RSN a fair bit.) I'm surprised that we don't have a table summarizing the community view on specific reliable sources. It looks like the current process is as follows: An editor wonders about the propriety of a specific source. The editor should come to RSN, enter the source in the search book to see what is in the archives, read all the archives carefully to determine the answer, and if the answer isn't clearcut, post a new question, and see what people think. This seems like an enormously inefficient process. I am aware of the blacklist and whitelist, but, unless I'm missing something, those aren't intended to be the definitive answers on whether a source is reliable. This seems like such an obvious need, I'm wondering if I'm missing something fundamental (for example, maybe it does exist, and I just don’t know where to look.) Having given the issue the briefest of thoughts, I'm quite aware that the answer isn't always as simple as "yes" or "no". Sometimes the answer is, "it depends". But I'm also confident one can handle that in a table.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically you need to keep looking up past discussions. A bit of a pain, but some folks think a source is relaible if it agrees with what they WP:KNOW, and unreliable if it disagrees with what they "know".  Which means the same people argue on both sides for the same source at times.  And there are also ArbCom "principles" and "findings" which apply to many (such as, for example, self-published sources, where ArbCom is actually more restrictive than current WP practice has been). Collect (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. SPhilbrick  T  13:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Warning
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you continue with the behavior on Mass killings under Communist regimes, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. When you note that an edit war is in progress, please do not join in even if you are in the right. The slow slog of consensus is the only way that article will ever become a high quality stable encyclopedia article. Several of your comments at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes verge on personal attacks, or at the very least assume bad faith on the part of your fellow volunteers; please try to focus discussion on improvements to the article. The article is locked from editing for the next month; please discuss proposed changes on the talkpage in the meantime. As always, template:editprotected and requests for unprotection may be used when a firm consensus is reached. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting as the only objectionable posts I saw there were by others. Thanks and Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If this warning is not removed I intend to complain at ANI. TFD (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghostofnemo (2nd nomination)
Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghostofnemo, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghostofnemo (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Eyeballs please
You commented on topic bans here. The wording's apparently close to consensus. It's now been updated as v3 and could do with a final check. Thanks - FT2 (Talk 17:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Novus Orator 06:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

AE
I saw you comment at AE. While I agree with your comment, it might be a good idea to stay away of this. Biophys (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

MfD
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject North Korea (2nd nomination) Hello, this is to invite you to a previously held discussion on MfD that had been closed but was recently revealed to be a vote fraud following the discovery of a big sockfarm operated by that particular individual. Appreciate if you could voice your opinion on this matter there. Best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Rick Scott
Do you really think that the following text, which you restored, belongs in the article? An edit has occurred here. It removed an off topic reference to the fact an attack ad was placed in his home town and the DC area against Rick Scott. Saying that someone paid to have a negative ad broadcast against Rick Scott serves only as a distraction and does not improve the readers understanding of facts. I must admit, it seems to me highly inappropriate, but perhaps you know best. Deor (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not note that such was in the body of the text - what I thunk I removed was the cite for the negative ad. Please remove that quote, which I did not realize was present. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Pro forma
Sorry for being so curious. I took it here because it really is off-topic over at WP:SPI. I've had 4.5 years of Latin, but much of it only pro forma ;-). I think "pro forma" means "for the sake of appearance", or, as our article writes, "as a pure formality, perfunctory, or seek[ing] to satisfy the minimum requirements". I assumed you intended to say something more like "in an official capacity", or maybe "as a matter of principle". Why would you want the CUs to run a sensitive tool "as a mere formality"? Or are there nuances of meaning I miss? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Try the implication for "as a matter of form" in the sense of "as a matter of routine," sometimes with the sense of "perfunctory" which is not actually the original meaning. It is misused a lot for "pro forma accounting" which generally means "made-up figures" :). Nice to see "How long, O Cataline" to be sure.  My Greek memory does not do much beyond "Phobes tous Hellenicous" though (transliterated as I do not like using that many special characters on my keyboard). Collect (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have not encountered that reading before. Since I know so little Latin (probably as much from Asterix as from schooling), I always take delight if I recognize or can use a phrase. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Asterix is not a valid Latin text :)  You might wish to read Stephen Leacock's essay on translating Latin ... Collect (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, in Germany they sell proper Latin language editions of Asterix for use as texts in Latin class. Of course we used boring Caesar and Agricola, but I got Asterix Legionarius just for the fun of it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not just get Winne Ille Pu? Collect (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Guess what. HW is still being a douche. I politely ask him to comment on something at You Ain't Goin' Nowhere and he bulldozed my edit with an edit summary that basically amounted to "I ALREADY TOLD YOU, READ THE EDIT SUMMARY". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 13:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems a civility reminder is due for him! But I really think the issue of "stalking" is not key here. Collect (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Requests for comment/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Reminder
You may want to voice your opinion on the discussion of whether to merge the Communist Terrorism article into the Left-wing terrorism article. Mamalujo (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

to disinvited guest

 * Try reading what I write -- and do not template me.  Nor did any "personal attack" occur, so please now consider yourself fully disinvited from posting on this page. Collect (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

question
Your manoeuvers in the US midterm election make me deeply uneasy. I hate to see people using wikipedia in the way you have just done. It makes me extremely sick. Polargeo (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh? I simply stick to WP:BLP - whether for Republicans, Democrats or Independents, or even any other group (including magicians etc.)   I am not "using" anything as a "manouever"  whatsoever. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see it that way. Not at all. Do you want me to devote my time to this or simply aknowledge you will be more accomodating in the future. Polargeo (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can not say that my practice of defending the WP:BLP policy will diminish.  I would note that where others have examined any controversy, they tend to strongly agree with me - you likely should look at Ratel's history on David Copperfield (illusionist)for one example.  Or the history on Alex Sink. Collect (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism
Please note that this article comes under the Digwuren rule and any edit-warring may result in sanctions. TFD (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not listed under those sanctions. Nor have I "edit warred" therein. Collect (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

White Argentine - mediation
Hi, as you commented in the BLPN thread showing an interest, I have added you name to the mediation, if you are interested please sign to accept or not as the case maybe,. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/White Argentine Off2riorob (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
You are being discussed in an enforcement request before arbitration and may respond here. TFD (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Re 'White Argentine' mediation
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation#.27Requests_for_mediation.2FWhite_Argentine.27:_Party_not_accepted_mediation_within_7_days —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 20:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My 'move by deletion'
In the comments you recently posted at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, you suggested I attempted a 'move by deletion'. I'm a little baffled by this, as I can't think what you are referring to. Could you please give me some indication here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#.22Andy.27s_move_by_deletion.22 AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The request for mediation concerning White Argentine, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  12:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

World War II opened
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK   13:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)