User talk:Collect/Archive 31

Note: This user has been successfully harassed from any BLPs or "political articles" which seems to encompass Moby-Dick as Melville held appointive political office.
Collect (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a big pedia so not working on BLPs could be a blessing. A read through the Obama article gives insight into Wikipedia...its a featured article and has been for a long time, but it's a pretty positive review for a sitting President with less than a 50% approval rating and I think he's a horrible president and possibly one of our worst....but because I disapprove of his presidency so vehemently is exactly why I don't edit the article. I know if I try to add the facts and perspectives of more than half the polled voters, I will have little success. Therefore, where we can make a difference is at keeping the quackery at bay in those areas where virtually everyone is United against the introduction of such nonsense. At arbcom they have you tied to the stake and have been given the opportunity to add more wood at your feet so you can either submit your defense and even explain in plain English what's at stake or wait until they toss in the flaming torch.--MONGO 00:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I too hope this will be only a topic ban. However, after looking at the Evidence right now, I would not exclude a possibility of site ban.My very best wishes (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * While a site ban may not be the goal, I doubt those that oppose Collect's efforts will miss him should that be the end result.--MONGO 03:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I site ban will be totally stupid, as there is only one area in which his behavior has been questioned. He does good work in other areas. A 1RR in political BLPs will be more than enough, and will give him the opportunity to learn that WP:WPDNNY. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Any such topic ban would basically keep me from doing what is most useful for Wikipedia in my opinion. Look, for example, at the edits made by the harassers:
 * shows an editor ignoring the clear finding that the "list" was SYNTH and uses  which is an editorial column to make claims of fact.
 * "The report's primary author was Thomas Donnelly, and Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt are credited as project chairmen. It also lists the names of 27 other participants that contributed papers or attended meetings related to the production of the report, six of whom subsequently assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration.  As I have iterated, opinions can only be cited as opinions - and this source is clearly an opinion source (the source also includes such "facts" as
 * ''The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
 * The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing. In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions. This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were. Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
 * Sound like opinion or like fact? In fact it is specifically part of the "9/11 conspiracy theory" category AFAICT.
 * introduces a "second letter" not even associated with PNAC and then adds the SYNTH that it shared seven signers with the PNAC letter.  If claims about the first letter's signers was SYNTH, how can one not note that connecting seven of them to a second letter not even connected with PNAC is relevant?
 * makes the edit:
 * Cruz has stated that satellite data shows no global warming in the past 17 years, based on a cherry-picked range of data that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change views as indicative of a short term trend.  (bolded is the edit)
 * That appears to make a claim in Wikipedia's voice directly that he cherry-picked data deliberately to make a false claim. The source used here states " Researchers largely have agreed that the rate of global warming has slowed in recent years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has acknowledged that the rate of warming since the 1998 El Niño has been smaller than the rate calculated since 1951." and "Cruz’s most recent statement, that “no significant” warming has taken place in the past 17 years, is more accurate". The WaPo article does not use the term "cherry-picked"  at all.  Nor does the CSM article use that term.  NEITHER of those  sources given as a reference for the "cherry picked data"  supports the claim at all, and so it is likely a BLP violation for any editor to use them as a source for a claim of fact in Wikipedia's voice.
 * But I can not come within a mile of that BLP - even for such an egregious violation. The FactCheck Levitan editorial source could be used for a claim ascribed to the person holding it, but not in Wikipedia's voice. ("FactCheck.org's SciCheck feature focuses on false and misleading scientific claims that are made by partisans to influence public policy. SciCheck is made possible by a grant from the Stanton Foundation" indicating that the purpose of such editorials is specifically to attack "partisans" and to be editorials in nature)  Lastly (before iterating the same Levitan source as though using it twice makes the opinion "more valid") we have a CNN source.  Amazingly enough, it makes no such claim about "cherry-picked data" at all.  Sorry -- when a single editorial source (noting the comment at the bottom of the Levitan source that the sourcing is intended to take aim at "partisans") makes a claim, we can not use it as "fact" in a BLP.
 * Care to defend those edits as being absolutely proper under policy?
 * If I can not make a difference on BLPs where my harassers and complainants are still actively making edits which are questionable under Wikipedia non-negotiable policies - what the hell can I do? Really? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment about that edit is correct. Under 1RR you could revert, and explain in talk. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And the other editor is edit warring on you -- he reverted your edit ("quote to citation for "cherry picked". Was attributed in a previous version but another editor demurred"  which fails to note the problem is in the source being specifically editorial in nature and per note at its bottom - specifically funded to handle "partisans")  -- and apparently thinking opinion is the same as "fact" to be made in Wikipedia's voice.     See the problem? Collect (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it always first revert or there are any exceptions such as partial revert? That's where the conflict begins.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been threatened even where zero reverts per se occurred (the change was to language which had been in a BLP for a while!).   Thus as long as the harassers are out in "full force and vigour" - I can not touch even Moby-Dick.  Collect (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It is pretty hard to debate these days whether the matter concerns BLP or not. Though it is clearest when the matter concerns COPYVIO. Can you point me to the thread or section where this regrettable proposal of 0rr might have taken place?  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Long ago - 2/0 blocked me at 1RR for "edit war" - which was quickly overturned. Gwen Gale blocked me for violating 0RR on political articles - for removing charges that a very long dead politician was actually a Nazi,   etc.  Look above for some of the accusations from the past.  For fun, look at the edits from 2008 on Dino Rossi and note that it later emerged that the main editor there (acting as owner AFAICT) was a campaign worker for another politician.  Who issued 3RR "warnings " many times on my talk page as a result.   Collect (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect: WP:WPDNNY. If there are egregious BLP violations, there are other editors around, you know? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And any such ban would include not mentioning any such violations to anyone at all -- did you not understand that minor cavil?
 * If I saw a claim that George Gnarph was a murdering thief - sourced to the Daily Mail  (which is RS except for contentious  claims about living persons, IMHO), I could not mention that fact to anyone at all - as it would qualify as meatpuppetry or the like.
 * Or I could wait as you suggest until someone notices it -- which can take more than 10 years for even absurd hoaxes, in case you missed that news . Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A 1RR on political BLPs will allow you to revert, explain your reversion and engage in talk. But if you don't defend yourself, and acknowledge some of the concerns (I know it will be hard; we are proud beings), you may end up facing more severe sanctions. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Where there is a BLP violation - letting it remain is actually contrary to any common sense. I think you just learned exactly how some others work to promote what they "know" to be the "truth" on BLPs.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with your statement is that you think that if it wasn't for you, BLPs with violations will remain in WP. But nothing could be further from the truth. If you stop editing WP today, nothing will happen, really. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. I am not essential to Wikipedia whatsoever.  If Wikipedia wants me (or anyone, in fact) to edit, and has me feel harassed while I am editing, then it is likely that I would not edit Wikipedia much at all.
 * Try an analogy:  You like to mow the golf-course fairway - but some kids keep shooting pellet guns at you.  You get discouraged and no longer enjoy mowing the grass. (See WP:HOUND).   You stop because if they keep making sure you can not enjoy mowing the grass, there is precious little joy to be had in mowing when the kids are shooting at you.
 * You are not essential to the golf course, - in fact you are entirely worthless perhaps, but when enough kids are there to drive off enough volunteers (See Gamergate inter alia)  the golf course will lose a lot of other volunteers.
 * No individual volunteer is worth a sou, but the collective and escalating danger is that too many of the mowers will be driven off by those pesky kids.   If one wishes to retain any editors, then one must prevent those shooting the pellets from affecting the volunteers.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I hear you. But I think that if you acknowledge some of the concerns expressed in the evidence, you will be able to continue editing, and the pesky kids will have a reason to stop shooting pellets. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Read my statements and rebuttals. Note where I state my positions - right or wrong.   And my actual political background - which I suspect will not shock anyone who actually reads my opinions about WP:BLP.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't give up yet. I looked at some of the "charges" against you (admittedly not all of them) and what I saw amounted to little more than "Collect often disagrees with me over content" or "Collect made 3 mildly snarky remarks" or "Collect prefers to take contentious BLP disputes about political figures to BLP/N where it will get more neutral eyes on it than on the article talk page which will have more partisan editors (on either side) watching it."  The 3RR allegations are the only ones I saw that seemed serious, but even there 3RR has exceptions for BLPs, in particular to eliminate "bias."  There is a lot, and maybe I missed some egregious ones in my sample, but I have faith that ArbCom will take the time to look through all the evidence and see how flimsy much of it is (assuming of course that I didn't miss anything really bad). Rlendog (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Extension
Looks like this case is probably going to proceed irrespective of your convenience. I can only suggest that if they decide to grant you any kind of extension, try to make the most of it, even if it's not nearly enough and even if it means you'll present a half-assed defense of yourself due to lack of time. I don't think it really seems fair but at this point I actually think they are more concerned with fully adhering to established protocol than making sure the process is fair. Anyway, I was going to make a large submission on your behalf, but I didn't get around to it before evidence closed. I requested an 11th-hour extension but it was denied. Sorry bud. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 11:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

American Politics 2 arbitration evidence phase closing soon
As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 14 April. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence closed
The evidence phase is now closed on the American Politics 2 arbitration case, which you are a named party to. You are welcome to add proposals at the workshop. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC
You're invited to participate in the discussion at Village_pump_(policy) Dohn joe (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Meghan Trainor
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Meghan Trainor. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phase closed
The workshop phase of the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, is now closed. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brian Sylvestre
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brian Sylvestre. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Because although your edits were not appreciated, they were valuable. Keep your head up and enjoy this adorable kitten.

RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC) 

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia articles about US politics and US political figures will be less neutral as a result of this decision, and I do not regard that as coincidence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Bad luck, I hope this won't put you off editing altogether. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It has - along with a cancer (melanoma) problem, and the fact that arbs who had repeatedly called for my ban in the past should have recused. I would note this case was argued in my absence (I was overseas, in fact), and that I find it so utterly irrational as to beggar belief.    This means that my stating that I am, in fact, a liberal is a direct and instant violation of the "decision" and O ask that anyone who finds this to be sufficient to ask for my permanent removal should do so.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phrase
Hello Collect, the workshop phase on the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, has been extended to 24 April 2015. This is the best opportunity to express your analysis of the evidence presented in this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See topic ban. Bleah. Collect (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Decision in Collect and Others
Hi Collect, in the open Collect and others arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Collect, I decided to waste some of my time, and have just taken a look at this frightful case. My comment (about a little piece of it) is here.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He also engaged in some unwitting violations of ArbCom protocol in your defense, and got a gentle tongue-lashing for it. You owe people now, dude. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah)   (talk)  (contribs) 02:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said I was physically AWAY - and actually unable to participate. Blaming me for being in that status is absurd.   I made clear that June 10 was the earliest I could do much -- but I find the committee is prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, and th3 fact that it allows arbs who had repeatedly called for my being sanctioned to act without recusing themselves to be a horrid example of sophomoric puerility.   To your health. Collect (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ariana Grande
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ariana Grande. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the quoted matter at the top of this page, or I will
Collect, when I happened on this section on the workshop for "your" case, with its striking header, I felt myself getting angry. A little research showed you had added a quote from 15 October 2008 to the top of your talkpage four years later on 7 September 2012,. It has been distressing the editor in question ever since. I know you know that. Unless distress is actually your purpose, please remove the quote, including all other reference to Buster7, such as this sneer (added on 17 Aug 2014), which actually identifies Buster, within the next 24 hours, or I will. I realize you may not be watching, and then I'll simply be the one to remove it. BTW, I don't think the identification is the big problem. Buster obviously hates having something he said as a newbie, which he wouldn't say today, quoted against him, whether or not it names him. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC).
 * For someone who purports to be paying attention, this post you made sure seems like a bunch of unnecessary bluster, directed at an editor whom you know is not watching, solely to make some kind of point. Just go ahead and remove it, without the posturing. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I had made clear that I was basically not going to be around (just returned from overseas) I find your post objectionable but shall gracefully leave it in place.  Count my edits.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Collect, I hope you and your wife are fully recovered. I have counted your edits as requested. Not sure why — did you want me to note how few they are, to emphasise that confrontation and personalising are so important to you that you're willing to spend three out of seven edits on the miserable matter of the quotes at the top of your page? And to ask Buster if he wishes cancer and melanoma on others, for god's sake. In response to an olive branch from him, yet. I'm very unlikely to post on your page again — I only did originally because I was angry and it seemed necessary. But as long as I'm here, is Christian terrorism really a page about US politics or US political figures? The mediation doesn't seem to focus on American issues — even though I see you mention the KKK a couple of times, so no doubt you'd have to avoid certain details going forward — and Christian terrorism in the United States is a separate article. I'd ask arbcom if I were you. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC).
 * The hostility of your message is as flagrant as can be. Are you really thinking Buster is extending an olive branch? That's ludicrus. Let me know when you and yours finish running Collect off the website.--MONGO 13:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I shall be sure to tell everyone in the world when anyone is fully cured of cancers such as malignant melanomas. If you wish to see the "olive branches" I trust you have read the site-which-must-not-be-named and such genteel olive branches from his friends as "For many years BLP has been Collect’s battleground of choice for deploying his well-stocked arsenal of assholery. It's no surprise to see him run for cover from the altogether tougher action at arbcom, or to hear him squeal "harassment!" from the sidelines now that he’s called to account—in WP as in RL narcissistic assholes commonly play the victim card when there’s pushback. Collect’s endgame strategy is one that’s well-tried. And didn’t that game work out well for, say, DangerousPanda/Bwilkins.",  and a WP edit .    I also suggest you read the history of "broadly construed" as a Wiki term of art indeed - as the only exception granted for reverts is absolute unambiguous vandalism as you surely have noted. I am not even allowed to mention groups related to any topic covered in "any namespace" including any essays or posts to UT Jimbo.   And yes - the topic of CT does contain material and discussions specifically related to the topic ban. Hell, even Mark Twain is absolutely covered by the ban!  And my two good articles are covered by the topic ban.  With all the same wishes you bestow on me, Collect (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

일반 문서
...is apparently the Korean word for "Articles". Not sure why the X! edit-counter tool shows the Korean word there (or in one other place: 过错 for Errors). Just FYI. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wot not why the system used Korean for an English Wikipedia though ... Collect (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Collect, I have moved the extended discussion (basically, everything after the candidate's response) followining your oppose at Neil's RFA to the RFA's talk page. If you or any other participant in the discussion (or, any of the bureaucrats) disagree with this, feel free to undo my move. Also you can change the title I chose for the talkpage section if you feel it is singling you out (I named it "Oppose by Collect" in anticipation that there may be need for similar sections in the coming week). Pinging. Abecedare (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration proposed decision posted
Hello. The proposed decision for the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed to as a party, has been posted. Thank you, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dennis Hastert
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dennis Hastert. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Final in person request
Assuming that, in spite of your medical condition and any Real Life situations, you still drop in here to see what's going on, I would forgivingly make a request. As a gesture of good faith, I wonder if you would consider re-working your talk page introduction so that it in no way mentions me or even hints to my existence. I would consider it a personal favor and perceive it as a handshake of forgiveness and an act of possible friendship. Any transgressions we have committed against each other should, by now, have faded into the long forgotten and distant past. . Buster Seven   Talk  15:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you assume he isn't watching this page, and have the patience to wait for him, else ask an admin to do it for you. That would really be a sign of good faith, especially after all the accusations you've made about the supposedly deceptive nature of his absence.  Don't purport to claim equivalence between Collect's RL health problems and your hurt Wiki-feelings. BTW, I don't think I've said anything to deserve the treatment you gave me at the ArbCom case.  Thanks for nothing, old pal.  Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah)   (talk)  (contribs) 02:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect has not edited Wikipedia since April 6, and all indications are that he won't for weeks more. In view of Buster 7's May 4 request for forgiveness and friendship, I feel confident that Collect would not hesitate to grant Buster 7's request.  Accordingly, since I have not been disinvited from editing this talk page, I intend to remove from view the unattributed material in question, within the hour.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Anything. . Buster Seven   Talk  21:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was AWAY. Physically away - and just got back from overseas.   I have cancer, wife has melanoma.   Wish similar health on others? Collect (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tough luck, bud. I am sorry to hear this.  WP would suffer with your absence, but I don't know that that's a good reason to stay.  And in any event WP appears content to serve as an online attack platform, so maybe the grapes really are sour. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 00:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - what I find galling is that I have been around for over nine years - and when I said I was away on a trip, I found it galling that anyone would snidely suggest (on and off-Wiki) that the trip (planned for two years) was "convenient".  Where those who were stalking/hounding continue to stalk/hound even when I am away, I find their position to be less than collegial at best.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I stumbled onto that case by accident after it was already underway, I subsequently watched the process very closely. There were multiple things that were considerably more than 0% galling.  Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Stalking again
is evidence thereof. User:Viriditas/Conservative alternate reality in the United States shows an unusual proposal for an article. Said editor is intent on preventing anyone keeping track of "problems" however even editing the sandboxes of other users whilst they are not present on Wikipedia,  and where the discussion at AN/I was ongoing. Collect (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * These diffs posted by Viriditas display a ridiculous, arrogant hall-monitor attitude. The essay belies a sort of blissful self-made ignorance.  Both are commonplace on Wikipedia. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Edward Snowden
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Edward Snowden. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bill Cosby
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bill Cosby. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Some people seem intent on defaming me by innuendo it seems
I was not absent "conveniently" from the arbitration case. I was on an extended trip planned for two years. I am, in fact, willing to send Jimbo photos from St. Petersburg, Helsinki etc. as absolute proof - and if you wish me to do so, please post here instead of making snide and unwarranted claims about me. I find such innuendos as being spread to be further examples of basic and explicit harassment. I also note that one arbitrator should absolutely have recused per prior discussions, and his direct personal attacks on me in the past. The community expects arbitrators to approach all cases with open minds and not with absolute and blatant prejudice. Collect (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
 * 2) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
 * 3) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Thank you
Collect, I'm back at Wikipedia, and I want to say thank you for the comment that you left at the Christian terrorism mediation talk page, expressing your willingness to wait for me to return. I think that it was very kind and generous of you to show that kind of consideration for my feelings. I especially appreciate that, even though we have disagreed about content, we can still treat one another with respect as human beings. I also see from something you said above that you are dealing with a health issue, and I sincerely wish you the best with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Same sincere wishes from me too, FWIW. You have more time for healthy habits now, instead of the unhealthy Internet, so enjoy if possible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The health issue is with my wife who now faces substantial surgery (at least not the immediate loss of her arm) and other possible medical treatments. My own medical issues are not life-threatening - prostate and related cancers are chronic in nature.  Note that I was not given reasonable ability to address the claims made about me at arbitration and, in fact, I was accused of deliberately avoiding the issues - while I was rather engaged in dealing with major real issues and an extended trip to Europe which had been planned for two years.  I wish there were some way to show those who made the snide and iterated comments how wrong they are and were, but that would clearly violate the (papal) infallibility of ArbCom. Collect (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you need to use the best redirect I ever created.🎃Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carlos Latuff
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carlos Latuff. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Geography only?
Are you permitted to comment on geography strictly omitting constitutional status? The intent is to launch an RfC on the “United States:Talk” page this week. I am not trying to cause a controversy, I just wanted you to know the six-months progress in your absence. Please use discretion, TFD is constantly trying to make this a discussion about constitutional status, and older≠wiser (Bkonrad) will not agree to the statement if any political assertion is made in the introductory lede sentence at "United States".

A group of twelve editors at an RfM this year have been hammering along on the same issue of including “native-born” Americans from the Insular Territories in the “United States” lede sentence. You may remember the Dispute Resolution of 9 to 3 participants two years ago, well the margin this time is 9 to 1. Of the three editors who opposed two years ago, Bkonrad has agreed to a statement as geographical extent only, without inference as to constitutional status. Golbez dropped out saying he does not want to be bothered on the subject again. The Four Deuces (TFD) has agreed but continues to snipe at various elements of the following charts.

I thought you might enjoy perusing them, as the intent is to launch an RfC on the “United States:Talk” page this week. Sunray (RfM mediator)(an additional mediator will administer the RfC), AlanScottWalker, Robert McClenon, The Gnome, RightCowLeftCoast, Bkonrad (older≠ wiser), Wzrd1, 66.193.25.66, TheVirginiaHistorian, (and in at least one iteration, TFD) have endorsed the proposed language.


 * "The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions. [n]


 * "Note: The federal district is Washington DC. The five major territories are American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. The nine smaller island areas without permanent populations are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and Navassa Island. U.S. sovereignty over Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo (Petrel Island) is disputed. See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. Both viewed April 6, 2016. ”

The following chart is of my own making. It has not been discussed as being included in the RfC. It may be that active participants to the mediation will not be permitted to make any posting beyond their opening statement of under 300? words. So, just FYI:

Good health to you and yours. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - but I am barred from anything remotely connected to any US politics whatsoever from the dawn of time.  Of course, I was not given a shot at refuting the evidence (I was, in fact, overseas, on a trip planned two years ago,  told the committee that, and was told "tough shit" or the like, and had some claim that my absence was "convenient"), and the persons who gave the "evidence" leave such edit summaries as "Fuck You!"  when they edit,  or edit was aver images of a politician in a BLP.    One might even fear that at least one arb, who has repeatedly called for me being banned entirely from Wikipedia in the past, but did not think that a reason to recuse,  might have prejudged the case such that finding that I used a "foreign word" would be sufficient for my summary execution (LOL?)  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Regrets. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...
...for your support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of it, for however long I shall remain in the position. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 08:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * My comments did not in any way reflect any judgment on my part, and it is possible that any comments on the actual matters at hand would be interpreted by those harassing me in the past as being violative of my topic ban referred to supra. Collect (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Quint Studer
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Quint Studer. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

Votes at an RfA
In an unspecified RfA, the first five hours saw a total of 8 !votes -- every single one an "oppose" for 0% support.
 * End of day 1: 21 to 23  (21 supports, 15 added opposes -  58% support )
 * Day 2:        40 to 33  (19 supports, 10 opposes - 66% support)
 * Day 3:        48 to 38  (8 supports, 5 opposes - 62% support)   (At end of Day 3 - 56% support)
 * Day 4:        56 to 41  (8 supports, 3 oppose - 73% support)
 * Day 5:        70 to 43  (14 support, 2 oppose - 88% support)
 * Day 6:        77 to 47  (7 support, 4 oppose - 64% support)
 * At end:       95 to 49  (18 support, 2 oppose - 90% support) (from end of day 3 to end - 81% support)

Yet we have folks (presumably) skilled in maths who did not see any change n the percentages indicating a swing of any sort. I consider a shift from 56% to 81% to be, in fact, a massive swing. Collect (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Arbitration Enforcement
Collect, your recent talk page posts appear to me to be a violation of your topic ban. Please be advised that I have filed a request for enforcement. Cheers. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for showing your colours here - - Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I was totes prepared to ignore the Koch thing because obviously that was a BLP violation, which I note has quite rightly been removed. But this?.  Not cool man...  Fyddlestix (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Look -- I do not know who you are -- but you filed a totally spurious SPI complaint against me, and I do not doubt your intent here.   I suggest quite sincerely that you stop hounding me for once and for all damn it! Collect (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Nobel laureates in Literature
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Nobel laureates in Literature. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back!!
I forgot to add this link: