User:Collect/archive 15

Samuel Dickstein (congressman)
Like I said, pathetic. Certainly compared to your having conniption fits about using Mike Rokyo -- a man whose name is practically synonymous with the phrase "Chicago journalist" -- as a reliable source about some actual Chicago journalism, as you did on some recent topic. In other words, your idea of what constitutes a "strong source" seems entirely dependent on your personal prejudices.

But you've reverted three different editors in as many days: try that stunt again and you'll get a chance to explain yourself at the 3RR noticeboard, a place you seem to have no compunction whatsoever about running to when it suits you. --Calton | Talk 18:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I trust you know the NYT s a "reliable source" as are the others. As for making threats - that sort of behaviour is sophomoric at best. Collect (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Business Plot aka Wall Street Putsch
According to historian, Sally Denton's book, "The Plots Against the President" ... she titles the event the "Wall Street Putsch" ...

see last paragraph at http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2012/01/18/plots-against-president-sally-denton/RrGQUNfHlYtAgCG59e60eK/story.html

possible to revise heading, redirect and restore edit?

68.101.217.238 (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope - you need more than one person using a term to do that - what you have is what she calls it. It was not apparently a widespresd term at the time according to the sources used.  Collect (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that we are going through this exercise again re: the nomenclature surrounding the plot to overthrow FDR and the White House ... I believe your colleagues approved of the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.238 (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If you change it again, I will request arbitration. I recall that there was much discussion about the term "Wall Street Putsch" on wikipedia in the past...( maybe it was here and the comments have been deleted?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.238 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Try again then - the consensus was not to promote a book -- as your insertion of a book review link clearly indicates is the apparent intent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There were several other editor comments here that approved the alternative names for the "Business Plot". Even the History Channel had an episode titled "The Plot Against FDR". Some removed the prior comments by the editors. And the NPR piece should be included because an excerpt of the Denton book is there. In February, you were only removing "Wall Street Putsch"...now you are removing all of the alternate titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.238 (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your alternates are not found in common usage in any reliable sources. And if you want to promote the Denton book, then write an NPOV article on it - do not simply spam it into other articles.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

note to an editor:
There are a great many people on Wikipedia (some with way-out views as to what they "know") - in order to make your own voice heard, it is best to sometimes hold your tongue (what an image!). You are free to have opinions about others, but expressing those opinions is of no avail to you at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
WhiteWriter speaks 17:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your support...
HI! I appreciate your support on Articles for deletion/Masonic Lodges of North Carolina. I think the "not notable nazis" will eventually win the argument, though. I am sick and tired of spendind tons of time AND MONEY to research stuff not wikipedia only to have it deleted. That guy Tyrenon has got get a life. I looked at this contribution history and over 66% of his contributions to wikipedia over the last two and a half years have been regarding deleting other people's work while he has created nothing. Check out what I posted on his talk page: User_talk:Tyrenon. Thanks again. Eric Cable |  Talk  16:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! Yep - there are some who do that -  but add the "history of Civil War" stuff to the article and rename to History of etc., with the list being the bottom part .  It is not the list which is notable in itself - but the history is irrefutably notable.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors rejecting BLP considerations
Hi Collect. I know you are a very considerate NPOV editor in regard to content additions in regard to BLP articles. Recently I have started to notice quite a few editors opposing any BLP considerations. Policy is quite strong from the foundation and Arbcom in regard to BLP and if this is not filtering through it may be necessary to return to Arbcom for further clarification - as your involved in many of the discussions, would you please log and keep an eye out for users that repeatedly oppose BLP considerations and for discussions that from your neutral BLP considerate position resulted in a POV support consensus.  You really can  20:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Will Beback has joined in and User:Coffeepusher has also reverted -  YGM -    You really can  21:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem? Does a sentence on his most famous law case actually violate BLP?   Will Beback    talk    21:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are well aware of the good faith NPOV concerns that your desired addition as focusing unduly on one project in four years work is in violation of WP:UNDUE - User:Coffeepusher has now two reverts and is edit warring the disputed content into the BLP.   You really can  21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? Working on Wikipedia for four [sic] years is UNDUE? That's a very strange theory. I am well aware that you don't like me and that you and Collect follow me around Wikipedia opposing perfectly good edits.   Will Beback    talk    21:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not you - read before you comment please. You see your own bigotry . I have no idea about you at all - No one is following you around, you attract investigation through your contributions -  You really can  21:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you're accusing me of bigotry?! Whew.   Will Beback    talk    21:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From an NPOV position, I am disturbed by your contributions and have already pointed that out to you - I urge you moving forward take a more BLP considerate NPOV position through your contributions -   You really can  22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I honor and obey all of the Wikipedia policies. Please don't call me a bigot. I consider that to be a personal attack.     Will Beback    talk    22:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am disturbed by your contributions and have already pointed that out to you - I urge you moving forward take a more BLP considerate NPOV position through your contributions. - Your wiki lawyering claims of attack are just a meaningless distraction from reality.    You really can  22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

My position on strong observance of the letter and spirit of WP:BLP should be pretty much clear. Collect (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for attention to an RS/N item
Dear Collect. As I value your opinion highly, I would value your attention and contribution to this RS/N discussion of the potential reliability or unreliability of using professional oral history. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I responded - but it is not a really simple question, to be sure. Collect (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm not sure if I hold a position on the issue, and I hold strong sourcing views.  It is an interesting problem to think about and debate towards solution, as it has impacts on cultures that produce oral knowledge rather than textual knowledge. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you look at using Wikiversity for an article on this material? I now it is pretty much a backwater, to be sure, but it allows you to make a free-form lecture on a topic without much interference, and especially without folks seeking to make your premises into the opposite of where you started (which is an endemic problem on essays at Wikipedia, alas).  Collect (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be— —Critical  22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Accusations
You accused me for violating WP:CANVASS, but I notified only users who participated in discussion at WP:AN/EW. For example, I notified user AndyTheGrump, and he is against topic ban. Can you withdraw your accusations? Thanks.-- В и к и  T   01:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you notify everyone who was involved in the prior discussiona and no one else? In ote, for example, that you did not notify the admins involved ... best practice for noticeboard discussions is to notify only the person being complained about.  Meanwhile shouting "homophobia" as people who are actually quite "gay sympathetic" is not going to get you very far at all.  Cheers.    Collect (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Care to fix
...this? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Baby and Bathwater
Hi. You've written some good essays. Can you edit this sentence:

The are which may be the most problematic, however, is use of "reliable sources" for biographies of living people, and WP:BLP sets a higher standard on sources than other policies set.

"The are which may be the most problematic"— I don't understand what you intended this to say. Thanks Wbm1058 (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! My mind goes faster than my fingers do .  I hope you like the fix. Collect (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Dowd vs Gingrich C
Hi, Collect. You said somewhere that opinion pieces are not a reliable source for facts in a BLP. I took a quick glance at WP:BLP and I couldn't find that in so many words. Can you point me to the right spot? Thanks! --  Kenatipo   speak! 02:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The precept is that opinion articles are citable as opinions only., , etc. Many times in fact on RS/N and BLP/N noticeboards. Collect (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --  Kenatipo    speak! 04:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

re: peer review
Thanks for the comment. In case you're not familiar with the process, WP:PR clearly states: "Wikipedia's peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate" (emphasis mine). From my POV, your nomination statement simply lists what you perceive is wrong with the article. I neither agree nor disagree with your assertions, and I'm completely uninvolved. However, that is not what PR is for. If you pinpoint weaknesses in the article, and someone disagrees with you, you do not need a review; you need dispute resolution. Review statements generally say something along the lines of "I'm looking for feedback on how to improve this article so it can become GA/A/FA" -- not, "these specific things are wrong with this article." One is seeking suggestions for improvement, the other is seeking backup. Do you see the difference? According to you, you already know what's wrong; you don't need a review. Also if it weren't for the dispute, I would simply reply: WP:SOFIXIT.

I hope this makes sense. Anyway, I closed the page because it has been open for almost two weeks, and has yet to receive a proper review, nor any clarification on your part. The review is still technically closed, despite your reversion of the template change, btw. María ( yllo submarine ) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Centpacrr had averred that it was a "high quality article." In point of fact, it is not. I request you reopen with the comment "How can this article be improved to meet GA standards."  Cheers.  Otherwise, "peer review" is a tad useless if all that is needed is for the edit warrior who has added reams of  purple prose to an extant reasonable article to say "but there is nothing more than a content issue here."   Outside opinions thus showing him where his view has problems is far better than trying for other processes, IMO.  Collect (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I won't. Articles are usually nominated for PR by those with an invested interest in the subject.  I commented first as a potential reviewer, but I closed the nomination because anyone can do so per the instructions if there has been an extended period of inactivity.  PR is not the correct venue for your dispute, especially when you plan on utilizing a misleading nomination statement.  Your goal isn't GA, so why lie?  That's very bad form, and it sets an equally bad precedent.  Again, what you want -- nay, need -- is dispute resolution.  You can seek outside views from the noticeboard, or simply ask for a third opinion.  María ( yllo  submarine ) 03:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Try WP:AGF -- the goal was to get a disinterested person who knows what makes a good article to review the article. It is not DR as I truly do not give a damn about how bad an article one editor is creating - the goal, as I understand it, on Wikipedia is to produce good articles!   Note that I specifically did 'not see PR as an "adversarial proceeding" as I am not an "adversary" of Centpacrr, but just doing my damndest to improve Wikipedia.  Cheers - but I find your position to be a teensy bit off-putting. Collect (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I will be closing Peer review/Charles Lindbergh/archive2 per Peer review/Request removal policy. The peer review should be closed as it is about a content dispute: ''To keep down the size of the PR page, every editor is invited to close inactive discussions. Please only do so with the following kinds of requests: 1. Requests that aren't appropriate for peer review, for instance requests for help in ... resolving an edit war, or detecting a copyvio. These should be removed promptly in the interest of the requester, since he/she is unlikely to get adequate response to them at Peer Review.'' Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Um -- did you read what I posted? This is not a "content dispute" it is an issue about whether an article with florid prose and copyright violations can meet "good article" criteria.   Alas - it seems those at Peer Review dod not wish to actually review such problems which are not "content disputes" at all.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I amde some comments on the article at Talk:Charles Lindbergh Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Glad to see that others see some of the same faults I saw. Collect (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
Sorry, was not trying to be condescending. We had a very short version before, but some editors have wanted many additions. Thanks for your comment. Parkwells (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In the main bio, a short version is best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

stalker
why do you stalk me? Are you, like, interested in me? Cuz u and I both know you are, my friend... If there's a page for recovering wikistalkers, I definitely will sign you up. I want you to get help. Just know that I do care about your health, my friend. We'll get through this...-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 02:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? I do not stalk you -  I have over 2300 pages watchlisted and you are about the very least of the editors I would remotely consider stalking!  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure buddy (sigh). So anyway, Mr. Stalker, I see you have a sudden interest in Bob Turner (politician). Tell me what will make you happy so you don't go crying to an admin...btw, the district was eliminated, that is factual and that is nonnegotiable. The fact that Weiner resigned for a sexting scandal is also fact, and personal views aside, I can't let you change that either. The fact that he was part of a conservative activist group is completely fine, and I see no reason for repeated deletion on that. The magazine Salon did argue that his win was "unremarkable" in their view. An argument is built on facts, my friend, and for them, the presidential polling trends was their case-in-point.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 23:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Um -- he has been on my watchlist since the Weiner election --- though I admit you seem to "own" the article by edit count. By the way, when seats are "eliminated" one does not call every seat "eliminated" at all -- generally the elimination is achieved by minor increases in geographic size of all the remaining districts.  I think you ought to recognize that this is how politicians view the redistricting -- it is not "elimination" of specific districts.   Cheers -- but your edits on the BLP are pretty horrendous.  Collect (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Robin Ficker
You've previously edited the Robin Ficker article. Please take a look at the current discussion and contribute to it if you have an opinion. Thanks. -- Pemilligan (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom comment
Hi Collect, I saw your comment about Wikipedia ought never be a game in which people count the numbers of editors blocked or banned on each side, seeking to get more of "them" blocked than of "us.". Do you mind explaining what this means? The only relevant facts here are that (1) there was never genuine evidence given for Cla's ban in the first place; (2) he complied with the terms of his ban far more sincerely than, say, WMC; (3) WMC was unbanned despite battlefield conduct in his ban appeal; ergo (4) it is a huge, cynical double standard for anyone to argue that WMC is allowed to be unbanned but not Cla. I recognise that you opposed WMC's ban appeal. I don't understand why you now recommend ArbCom apply a double standard. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I had not thought I was applying a "double standard" but that I was strongly supporting the loosening of the reins entirely on him. I regard my comment as a bit of a truism.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I noted, you opposed WMC's appeal so I am not saying you are applying a double standard. However, if ArbCom makes any decision other than to fully remove Cla's ban, as they did for WMC, how can that not be a huge double standard? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect ArbCom has many times been inconsistent inthe past - making a point of it, however, is quite unlikely to impress them here. Collect (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are probably right. They can make up the rules as they go along.  Why should they give a damn if I point out some blatant hypocrisy?  With no shareholders to report to, no KPIs to meet, no financial targets, no objectives of any kind, identities hidden by pseudonyms, and far removed from the public gaze.  They ban and they unban and have nothing much to consider beyond their own convenience.  What a sad situation. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not "hypocrisy" but the fact that many decisions are arrived at after "horse-trading" and compromising - when given any sufficiently different information with a significantly different committee, all bets are off -- win, place or show.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The system is deeply flawed. We seem to accept that the Committee isn't going to bother looking at the evidence, and isn't going to be bound by any actual rules or precedents, and if the outcome happens to be horrifically wrong, who cares?  It is to me astonishing that such a barbaric system can pop into existence in the 21st century.  I watched GoRight driven from the community in a manner similar to the mob in Salem.  We've gone back about 3,000 years in our history to a situation similar to what must have existed before the Romans invented law.  It may not be "hypocrisy"; it may just be "negligence".  What is clear to me, though, is that this system continues to exist because the public, and Wikipedia's donors, just don't know about it.  It has to stop. Alex Harvey (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP question
In reference to this diff which part of WP:BLP says that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Try If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out
 * I consider "unintelligible" to be a very weak source.
 * Try also:  Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources which is the present case


 * See also BLP/N discussions at where the anonymous rumour was deemed unusable in a BLP.   similar discussion result.    ditto.


 * Anonymous sources are not usable in making any contentious claims in a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I take it that this is the paragraph you are objecting to? If so, I'm fairly certain that multiple reliable third-party sources can be found for most, if not all, of that paragraph.  No offense, but I'll defer reading those discussions as they are quite lengthy.  As for anonymous sources, the only thing I can find in BLP is WP:BLPGOSSIP and it doesn't say that they are not usable.  It says to be wary of them (i.e. use caution) and it's about gossip. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The only actual RS fact is that the transcript says "unintelligible." Wikipedia and specifically WP:BLP prefers facts.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by that. That some people believe they hear "coon", "punks", "clueless" or "course" are facts.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When it comes to dubiously relevant negative material about Martin, you've advocated its inclusion where Martin's family had confirmed the material . In this case, Zimmerman's close friend confirmed that he heard the word "goon", or possibly "coon":
 * (Source, ABC News). Maybe you can help me understand why you consider the material about Martin is a BLP slam-dunk, but the negative material about Zimmerman a BLP violation? MastCell Talk 00:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (Source, ABC News). Maybe you can help me understand why you consider the material about Martin is a BLP slam-dunk, but the negative material about Zimmerman a BLP violation? MastCell Talk 00:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Factual material provided by the family and printed in reliable sources is not "dubiously relevant negative material" and is not sourced to anonymous sources. And again -- the transcript says unintelligible. To me unintelligible means, of all things UNINTELLIGIBLE. Is that too hard to grasp? Collect (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where do "anonymous sources" come in? Zimmerman's close friend - who is decidedly not anonymous - seemed to feel the word was reasonably intelligible, at least enough so to narrow it down to two possibilities. And this was printed in reliable sources. I understand that the person who transcribed the call rendered the word as "unintelligible". But I don't understand why you think we're therefore forbidden to discuss any other reliably sourced views on the tape. And I continue to see a bit of a double standard here, but that's a separate matter. MastCell Talk 04:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where no one knows what the word was - not even his friend asserted he was certain - then ascribing such contentious claims as saying he said "coon" in a BLP-compliant article is clearly a no-go. Cheers.  And the editorial comment only said some (anonymous) people said they thought they heard the word -- every play "telephone" as a child? Collect (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Radical Right
I do not understand your long campaign against this article. Although you and I may not accept the descriptions offered by Daniel Bell, Seymour Martin Lipset, Peter Viereck, Richard Hofstader and more recently Sara Diamond, Chip Berlet and many others, our role is not to judge or censor what they say, merely to report it. As a wise man once said, "We report, you decide". TFD (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No such campaign on my part -- other than to respect Wikipedia policies. Such as accurately stating what the cited sourse states. Cheers. Now scram if you wish to keep this civil . Collect (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

1RR violations at Pro-life feminism
Please revert yourself at Pro-life feminism; the article falls under 1RR abortion topic arbitration. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No notice on page or talk page seems obvious; Cheers - but I tried to self-revert.  Warn Rosce for sure as he absolutely has gone over any lines.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've struck my archiving of the AN discussion and filed a request for clarification with ArbCom here. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like we finally got an answer here -- Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch
Hello, I wanted you to be aware that I am initiating a discussion regarding the proposed deletion of the Wikiproject for Paid Advocacy Watch/Editor Registry. You can view this discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Paid_Advocacy_Watch/Editor_Registry 71.237.2.24 (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

RE Dickens and racism article
Hello - I noticed this contribution by you on the ANI page, and I wasn't sure how to interpret your remarks about Dickens' editors. Were you perhaps referring, at least in part, to the article on Dickens and racism? If so, I for one would be interested to read any observations you may have about the article itself on its Talk page. In particular, leaving aside the personal issues currently under discussion at ANI, do you think that the page regards a legitimate, encyclopedic topic broadly amenable to NPOV treatment? If so, what areas/issues do you feel are most in need of editorial attention, especially as regards NPOV? Thank you. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Personal disclaimer: Since I was a proponent of creating a subarticle of this sort in order to free up development of the main Dickens page, I find it difficult to be impartial here. My continued involvement stems from a feeling that it would be wrong for me just to walk away now that the page has been created. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am glad it is not a BLP as otherwise it would run severely afoul of that policy . It contains an unhealthy amount of hindsight, opinion, conjecture, surmise and more. Collect (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I was just adding, "I think your contributions, however limited, could help the page eventually find broader consensus." I still think that. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Polandball at AE
In the AE discussion I compared the attitude to a lynch mob. You said I shouldn't attack the ArbCom like that. I was not attacking the ArbCom – or at least I did not know I was. WP:AE is not a forum for arbitrators. Requests are handled by administrators. In fact even I have closed a WP:AE case!

I have not really read the administrator comments. Are you saying the arbitrators have taken over the case? If so, I do not think AE is he proper place to handle it. The formal issue at AE is IBAN. It seems that admins and arbs really want to talk about Polandball and hate speech. If that is the case, then the proper thing to do would be to open an arbitration case: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Polandball. This would be an interesting case, as for once the arbitrators would have to rule on content, not technicalities of behavior. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I noted that it was less than sublime that Russavia posted the same questions to each arbitrator. That is not, in my experience, the best way to win Arbitrators over to one's position.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

NORN
I did not say Courser "must mean the Tea Party movement is "radical right"". Could you please strike your comment at WP:NORN. TFD (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You use the "fact" that Courser used books which have "Radical Right" in their titles to aver that the TPM, since Courser used those books, is "Radical Right." That is nicely clear.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I wrote that Courser says, "Recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right". TFD (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have never stated that Courser is associating the TPM with the radical right. Could you please strike out that comment. TFD (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And then immediately adds the equivalent of "It ain't." BTW, you elide a goodly part of the quote from Courser:
 * What little recent academic analyses the Tea Party has received thus far has attempted to place it within the context of past scholarly work on conservative social movements. The comparison is not flattering, as social movements that originate from the right have almost invariably been portrayed as intolerant, resentful, ignorant, and paranoid.
 * This characterization does not bear up under scrutiny and falsely places the Tea Party in the context of an academic tradition of marginalizing populist and conservative social movements as illiberal, intolerant, and radical. On the whole, Tea Party movement is neither racist nor radical, and its political demands fit within the mainstream of American politics.
 * Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Since an editor said, "you struggle to find even one reference", I showed that there are sources that describe the TPM as radical right. However it is preferable to rely on one good source that explains it has been so described then to search for examples. The third source is by two professors at the London School of Economics and is not a political manifesto. (Note that you defended using a similar source at "far left politics".) None of these sources are "scholarly indictments of the Tea Party", merely sources that use the term radical right to describe the Tea Party.

However you have not addressed the question at the noticeboard: Is it synthesis to conclude that Courser is referring to the writing by Bell, Lipset and Hofstadter when he says "past scholarly work"?

TFD (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your use of clearly polemical sources indicates that you have not found a scholarly source calling the Tea Party movement "radical right." Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Incompatible with building an encyclopedia?. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for stepping in there. That was a good result. I think my problem was getting across to him how we use sources. I'll work on a form of words that conveys that more clearly for future such encounters. Thanks again. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Pink slime edit summary
I liked what you did here and I noticed your edit summary. I wondered if you were acquainted with an essay I wrote? If not it might interest you. --John (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I find "however" to be rarely used properly used on Wikipedia, and never so needed that removal harms an article . Nice essay - are you going to expand on it for projectspace?  Collect (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Maybe one of these days; it might be better placed somewhere in the MoS, if ever I get around to it. --John (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Newspeak and the essay
Prego. As a relative newbie, I find the status of Wikipedia "Essays" confusing. I often see them cited as if they had quasi-guideline status, and I'm sure I've done something similar itself, at least in reference to WP:CREEP. So I find your attempt to clarify the issue intriguing. Personally, I find newspeak tendencies irritating and worrying both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Essays have no special status - though ones which get routinely cited get to be well-known. I try to make essays based either on ArbCom statements, or on famous quotes, trusting that few will try to assert that the essay is not useful .  And feel free to add to any essays I have written. Collect (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Not your work, but one which has attracted my attention is WP:Don't assume. I've sometimes toyed with the idea of recasting it a bit less aggressively perhaps. But then again... —MistyMorn (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Holy moly
See this, Sockpuppet investigations/Festes. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure they are socks - but the IPs, Ocelot and Festes seem suspicious as a possible group. Wiki, Blue and Charles I dunno about. Wish they were more obvious - but maybe we will get a CU on the lot. Collect (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is so much overlap, I can't see how they wouldn't at least be meats. Bologna, not prosciutto. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * More likely "Albanska Sujuk" (sp). Collect (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sergey Zagraevsky
Sorry but I can not agree with your actions concerning this page. The painter's gallery is very useful, and as a compromise I've left only the books which have ISBN. And the lost files with his pictures will be undeleted soon because there was the author's permission. --Ozolina (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The pictures have been undeleted! --Ozolina (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Author's permission"? Nope - that is not how WP:BLP works.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There was the author's registered permission # 2009062810038434. The situation was described and solved here: . And I think that it is a good compromise to leave only books with ISBN. --Ozolina (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Again - WP:BLP is what governs on Wikipedia - not an "author's permission". And Commons is not Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You've not understood me and are spoiling the article, because the gallery and list of books are necessary. It looks like vandalism. --Ozolina (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your good note on my edit on Page Ranina Reddy. Vithurgod (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ozonlina is going on putting the paintigs of this hobby painter in WP. There is much disussion about this COI in russian and German WP as well, french WP deleted him. User Ozonlina spams many WPs. --Robertsan (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that there is no citation for being an artist but the own website! The two catalogues with his work have no ISBN number and cannot be found in any library. The art crtics are taken from the own website. There is no important exhibition, no museum, no famous collection. They want to push him as an artist in any possible way.--Robertsan (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber edits
Hi there. I don't understand the objection to the Joe the Plumber edits that you undid. All of the information is accurate, verified, referenced and comes from reliable sources. My understanding is that wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic. That means edits should be based on fact.

The entry was clearly counterfactual before I edited. Your undo contributes to maintaining that counterfactuality. Please give a better explanation rather than initiating an edit war. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Read the policies. Heck -- why not go to WP:RS/N and show the folks there the edit you desire and see what their unbiassed input is. Or at WP:BLP/N which is basically applicable here as well. Collect (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Come on, buddy. Seriously? Initiating an edit war? Yeah right. Your explanation was clearly given in the edit summary. Calabe1992 18:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

False report of Canvassing
Could you please stop canvassing for your WQA, which is in violation of behavioral guidelines. TFD (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Notification of people mentioned is required - did you miss that on the noticeboard? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sock record
Not a record when compared to folks like Mikemikev, but as it pertains to a specific Afd, possibly: but compare to Sockpuppet investigations/Haeretica Pravitas/Archive, which came out of two similar AfDs, one for the theory and one for the person, Articles for deletion/Superbradyon (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Luis González-Mestres. Ah, happy days. Poor Kevin really got his feet put to the fire after proposing the person. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow! Most socks I ever caught on CompuServe in one forum was about 15 names for one person.  But we had tools far different from CU in those days. Collect (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, with this type of sock it's usually over quickly as soon as the AfDs close. Sockpuppet investigations/Knowitallfortoday/Archive wasn't a lot of fun to deal with, but the edits were so obvious (as with our current case) that DUCK suffices. Our present case involves a bunch of different IPs as well (and I'm not good at those Who-is searches), but I think that the party will be over as soon as the AfDs close, which hopefully will take place this millennium. Hey, did I already say "thanks for your help" anywhere? Thanks for your help! Drmies (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are assuredly welcome. Collect (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So Protonism came and went, then came again briefly and went again. Collect, I'd hate to have you as an enemy! Drmies (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While I have some "unfriendly stalkers" , I consider no one an "enemy." And most people as friends.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

How intersting
That you are at 3rr also! Hipocrite (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? I think you need to count better than that!

Your reverts on Lyndon Larouche are at 11:10, 13:14 and 13:20 today. Mine are at 12:44 and 13:12. Cheers - but my math professors at MIT taught that 2 != 3. I guess you likely did not have them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * How interesting. I wonder, when was the article last tagged with pov? I assumed you were having a hard time with 2 and 3 also. Hipocrite (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And note that the edit summary for your tag editon was clearly aimed as an "undoing" of my simple non-POV edit. Note that adding tags and removing tags has generally been counted in 3RR cases.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Adding tags that haven't been on the article in months, perhaps years, have not. But if you want to make aggressive edits and then revert repeatedly to defend them without substantial talk page engagement in an article covered by sanctions, please feel free to continue. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wohoo! Removing "cult" is an "aggressive edit"? Sheesh!  Collect (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this is. Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

YCSI
I had no idea that YCSI was a texting acronym when I wrote it, and certainly did not intend that meaning. Hipocrite (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Sure. Sure. Collect (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing socialism
The best way to ensure tha the article survives AfD is to ensure that the article describes a specific topic. Saying for example that "rws is a term that describes Hitler's brownshirts or Tony Blair's New Labour" probably is not a good idea at this point in time. TFD (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Collect (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sergey Zagraevsky
Hi I am Robertsan from German WP. There is a one purpose account who tries to push this man as a famous painter. There are no sources for that, but the own website. I therefore will take away the section about art, because this is original research only. I am sure the Ozonlia account will not be amused. Regards --Robertsan (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Mervyn King
What is the issue? Since when did the Financial Times become an unacceptable source? Every single thing on that BLP has a source for it, a mainstream source. The section I am posting in is called Criticism, do you want me to post praise in it? King himself accepts some of the criticism the article mentions whilst rejecting other parts of it (as I was about to add before being so needlessly interrupted). Please cut out your whitewashing activities. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am having real difficulty getting anything out of you other than the fact that you are hurt and upset that there are people in the world who are critical of 'Sir' Mervyn. Any response, or shall I assume your reversions are vandalism and undo you? ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Try discussing on the article talk page and I urgently suggest you not edit further today. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ur user name featured in two Yahoo News graphic about the various GOPers' Wikiblps...
LINK: the one for Santorum and the one for Mitt. Hey, you think their semi-realtime, "live" graphics, set up to automatically register a click as a one or a batch of new edits get made? suppose not. Probably....--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No idea -- sort of a "fun" article, but it does not remove the "vandalism reverts" from the counts. If they made t more accurate as to how major the edits were, it might be a good tool.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)