User talk:Collect/Archive 33

AE block
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban (see below), you have been blocked from editing for a period of a fortnight. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
 * Sorry Collect, I was willing to cut you some slack at the last AE request because you were removing an obvious BLP violation, but [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=679138211 this] is a clear violation of your topic ban. You might not be discussing the substance of the political issue, but the briefest of glances at Sylvester Turner shows that he is clearly a US political figure and thus covered by your ban from "any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace" (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others). The wording of the topic ban makes it abundantly clear that you had no business commenting on that thread, and that you need to stay well away from the topic of American politics. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

✅ J bh  Talk  13:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice
You and I don't always see eye to eye but I'm going to give some sincere advice. You can read it, ignore it, delete it before reading or whatever you like.

If you want your topic ban to ever be lifted it is imperative that you do not edit anything remotely related to U.S. politics. If some guy once ran for dogcatcher in Mouse Turd, Nebraska then don't edit his article. Likewise for non-BLP topics. History shows that people often do get their topic bans lifted if they keep their noses spotlessly clean for at least 6 months. So that's what you'll need to do. You can decry the injustice of it all if you like, but that's not going to help and is much more likely to hurt.

In the meanwhile build up a good record editing other stuff. You say you collect things -- why not edit numismatics, or bring Inverted Jenny to FA status (which could definitely be done), or something else? When things get hot it's therapeutic to change focus. I'm mostly known as someone who writes about climate change, and indeed my most-edited article is global warming. But my second, third, fourth, and fifth-most edited articles have nothing to do with that. Give it a try. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all Inverted Jenny is a "political article" as the stricture is clear - second is that that article is actually misnamed.   The stamp was issued for a special flight to promote airmail, and was sought by President Wilson.  "On March 1, 1918, the Post Office Department made an agreement with the War Department ‘to inaugurate an Aerial Mail Service between Washington, D.C., and New York beginning May 15th."  Thus "political" - " On March 1, 1918, the Post Office Department made an agreement with the War Department ‘to inaugurate an Aerial Mail Service between Washington, D.C., and New York beginning May 15th."   The stamp was issued on May 13th - having been designed and printed also on political grounds.   The pilots were chosen specifically on the basis of political contacts.  Wilson bought the first stamp issued.  And the "invert" may have been deliberately sold to a person with political connections.   Sorry - can not tough that article with a ten foot poll (sic?).


 * The broader issue is that my edits on BLPs are not "poor" as some aver - and I find that absurd claim to be quite disheartening indeed. The problem is that some folks who disliked my strong positions on such (that allegations very rarely belong in any BLP, and that opinions must be cited and ascribed as such to the person expressing them) - which had absolutely nothing whatsoever with my personal point of view, but a hell of a lot with their personal points of view - use the principle of "wind and water erosion" to eliminate other editors, rather than accepting that maybe they simply do not really understand the Wikipedia policies, which are intended to allow what we write today to still make sense a hundred years from now.  Wikipedia has far too much "useless information" tossed at readers, instead of dealing with the most salient information, neutrally presented, and staying away from the "silly season" stuff which perniciously invades far too many articles.
 * And of course the principle that "harassing folks I do not like is fine" which also pervades the project. This is an endemic poison, and related to the "we can erode the person by attacking him often enough - we can concentrate on the 10% of the time we were right and he was wrong, and no one will note the 90% of the time that we were the ones who were wrong."
 * By the way, note that the "topic ban" is for a minimum of 18 months, and that the 1RR is perpetual as far as the apparent wording of the sanctions go, and the first ever saying "we will not accept the absolute requirements of a policy to be used by this person ever".   Some appear to aver that if a person added "George Gnarph deliberately poisoned 20,000 people at Madison Square Garden CHEERS!" to a BLP that I could not remove it.
 * As far as I can tell, this is the longest such sanction ever given out, and the broadest - even (according to some) including Denali because the mountain bore the name of a politician!  It covers all of American history - which covers even such issues as the Tariffs of the nineteenth century, religion in the US and so on.  Almost all US postage stamps, as I noted, are "political" if you really have someone "anonymously" scanning my every edit.
 * And I note you do not address an IP saying he would be "tickled pink" to have a relative of mine die - which I find to be a teensy bit more corrosive on Wikipedia that my saying that listing people making "connections" for them was SYNTH (noting that my position was, in fact, borne out at the AfD). And those who yelled the loudest that I was "crying BLP"?  They were wrong at the AfD, and remain wrong.   But it seems iterating accusations weighs more heavily than fact,  just as enough water poured onto granite will erode it.    Collect (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Health update
Cousin with esophageal cancer just had 1/3 of esophagus and 1/2 of stomach removed, and significant enlargement of lymph nodes. I am sure "IP2600" is thrilled. Collect (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Tickled pink. It's interesting how your family members seem to come down with horrible diseases every time you get in trouble here.  Cheers, 2600:1000:B01D:FB5:E191:5083:4589:66C6 (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)  (adding colour so people can find this rot) Collect (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And she may not last the week (sigh) -- I am glad you are so thrilled about this - it makes me think that evil does endure and that administrators more focused on "well BLP/N is sorta politics related"  than on your behaviour demonstrate that fact as well.  Collect (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)!

Note: Please do not protect this page - the assholes who have stalked me have won, so let them gloat - after all it is more important to allow folks to accuse living persons of being war criminals than it is to protect Wikipedia policies. Collect (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

note this is what I have had to endure here - and the question is whether this sort of behaviour is "unimportant" - or whether it is a fatal poison at the heart of the issue. Please reply to my email. Collect (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do you share such personal medical scenarios with the world wide web? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.56.181 (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)   Neat - I knew someone would show up again as an anonymous IP. And same location -- surprise, surprise, surprise! Collect (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

HOUND STALK HARASS - but that does not mean anything here
Yet such editors go unmarked at all - while it is a most grievous sin to point out that [Talk:Koch_family/Archive_1] appears to violate WP:BLP on its face. "My fault, my fault, my most grievous fault" for thinking that Wikipedia's most important policies are actually important, while folks like "IP2600" can go around stalking, hounding and harassing and no one does a single damn thing about them at all. Collect (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP addresses belong to mobile phones. Blocking them would be futile as the effort required to change the IP address is trivial. I can semi-protect your talk page for you if you want, though. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The addresses should be blocked then - let the cellphone company know that someone is pissed that an "anonymous editor" says he is glad a relative of an editor is dying a painful death - has it occurred to anyone I am still upset that an idiot complained before while I was trying to calm down and deliberately is seeking to inflame the whole damn situation? Does it not seem reasonable that when  an "anonymous" IP harasses, stalks and hounds a user that doing not a damn thing is not going to stop the problem?      How would you feel if IP2600 wrote "I am glad Mrs. XXX is dying a painful death - haha!" or the like  - and XXX was your cousin?    And that untouchable anonymous editor brings you repeatedly to noticeboards?   What expletive would you find excessive?  Do not protect this page - let everyone see how obnoxious harassment can get, how evil the perpetrators of it are, and that is will signal the end of Wikipedia in many ways.   Which is more important - whether a BLP/N edit which made no political statement is violative of an absurdly over-broad sanction, or whether people say "I am effing glad  a person is dying - and XXX wears gloves made from Holocaust victims" etc.    Answer please - which is effing more important?  Collect (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of importance, it's a question of practicality. I can block the individual IP addresses, but it's entirely possible that the intended recipient might never see the block, because IP addresses like that change so frequently. I've blocked a small sub-range of IP addresses, which might get their attention, but they may well end up with an IP address outside that range, and blocking a larger range creates a significant risk of impacting innocent third parties. That's why protection is a more effective solution. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the sock master who would be guilty of causing inconvenience to Verizon users - I am followed and stalked and harassed and it appears to me no one here gives a rat's ass about that - instead they split hairs about whether a comment that libels should not be placed in BLPs is "political" or not. Again - note that political stuff exists on this user talk page so a true literalist would rule that every single post I have ever made here in the past months is a violation.    Frankly, if a large enough block was made at Verizon, they would certainly track down the "anonymous" user.  And how (again) would you feel if your wife were dying and an idjut said he was "tickled pink"?   Really?  Not a scintilla of umbrage from you? Collect (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Collect, we simply must balance collateral damage with avoiding disruption. We can't block a huge number of innocent people to stop one person who will just find another set of IPs if we do. It is not inconveniencing Verizon we are worried about, we are worried about legitimate editors from that range trying to contribute here. Would you like me to semi-protect your talk page for a while? Chillum 16:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume no one on WP has said they would be "tickled pink" to have one of your relatives die then. You are lucky.  As for the IP2600 -- I wish him all that he so earnestly deserves. Collect (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If I told you some of the things people on Wikipedia had said about my family it would horrify you. Chillum 20:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Argh - in which case I trust you understand umbrage occurs - whilst some editors seem more like Dolores Umbridge ... Collect (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes, Airplaneman   ✈  23:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * TY - I trust you see that the problem is not in what is posted at any given time - but in the stated objectives of the "anonymous" editor, whom I suggest is almost undoubtedly an "established editor" under another name, doing their damdest to destroy an editor who, truth be told, has been one of the most active protectors of WP:BLP for a long time now - and the famed AfD which was closed finding the "list" was a POVFORK and SYNTH is pretty good evidence that others agree with me that using any Wikipedia article to make inferences of "guilt by association" (incuding a lot of "dual loyalty" garbage, and making sure "evil people" were clearly labeled as "Jewish ethnicity") are intrinsically violative of policy. Collect (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WTF??!!?? Are you still stuck on PNAC? It is well past time to drop that stick, move on and maybe even consider that others can hold a different opinion than you without being devils. On a different note I wish you and your family the best possible outcomes. No one should have to go through that and it can be unbearable for everyone. J bh  Talk  01:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The clear and overwhelming consensus at AfD (not even a close call) was that the "article" was a POVFORK using SYNTH about living persons.  I do not and did not view the minority at the AfD as "devils", and have never posted anything remotely near that apparent claim as to my view,  only that my understanding of WP:BLP in the case at hand seems to be the strong consensus of many other editors.  Others may differ, but that is what a clear majority felt - and which was my position from the start.   If a person is backed up at a very well attended AfD by many editors - I think you might consider the remote possibility that I was, in fact, correct in noting the problems.  Collect (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Use of "Booking Photo" in a BLP INFOBOX!
I fail to see how any editor can remotely justify using a person's "booking photo" clearly labeled as such - in the infobox of a BLP! But that is how a few editors regard the policy -- if one finds an evil person, post their "booking photo" in the infobox  and make sure everyone sees "Booking Photo" as well. Collect (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ummm... you did not notice how no one is advocating that and everyone is trying to fix it? Thank you for catching the caption, I have removed that. If you can move files maybe you can change the file name to something other than Sheena_Mugshot.jpg maybe Ma_Anand_Sheela.jpg. Possibly even delete the old version with the booking placard. If you think there should be no picture please comment at BLP/N instead of whatever this is. Your input would be appreciated. Cheers. J bh  Talk  14:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Crap... I didn't think. I am really sorry. J bh  Talk  14:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * NP -- I think you see my frustration here - there are thousands of equally bad violations on Wikipedia at the very least - and note the editors who opined (more-or-less) "this photo is fine and dandy here with the nice big 'Booking Photo' caption (and the fact the person looks like a corpse in a mortuary photograph)" on the BLP talk page and at BLP/N. Collect (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I do understand your desire to clean up BLP violations. It needs to be done and you are very good at identifying them. Where the problem comes up (Not saying in this case) is where you try to force your view of policy over the community's. I have mentioned this before and there is no need to go into it again so I will leave it at that. J bh  Talk  19:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "It looks fine to me.", "Basically, she got away with (attempted) murder"  are how some editors appear to view this.  Thankfully the infobox photo is now removed - but when folks repeatedly accuse me of "crying BLP" I suggest they ought not say using a booking photo in an infobox looks fine in any sense at all.   If that is "crying BLP" then lock me up for sure. Collect (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about the "It looks fine to me" comment at BLPN you have taken it way out of context. I was seeing the old picture in the article even though I had replaced it with a cropped version. I had said "what is showing up in the article is some combination of the old picture with the new picture's aspect ratio."[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=679417519&oldid=679402063] and replied "It looks fine to me. You probably need to clear your browser cache and possible purge the WP cache." [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=679418264&oldid=679417519]. This was a comment on a technical problem with what I was seeing in my browser and not a comment on the BLP issue.  J bh  Talk  19:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Which of you two deleted the image then? Speak up - don't be shy here. If a person sees a BLP violation - what does the policy say to do?   The image which "looks fine" is, curiously enough, the "mugshot" used improperly.  Really?  Collect (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And... here we go. You can read the discussion and see what was said about how to address the issue or you can make shit up to conform to your view of reality. The thing I love about Wikis is that everything is recorded and it is very easy to document when someone tries to take something out of context or tries to subtly reframe a comment to 'win' an discussion other than the one they originally were having. (Much like you just did rather than admit you had taken MrX's comment out of context) We stand at a crossroads if one direction we can have a civil conversation where we may have vastly different opinions but can deal with each other honestly and maybe come to a better understanding of each others viewpoints on how to interpret and apply Wikipedia's rules. The other is a rehash of old behaviors which are demonstrably destructive. The choice is yours. J bh  Talk  20:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear me - tangent time again. If a page "looks fine" with a likely BLP issue, the problem is that the page is not actually "fine."   And I note you no longer assert that the really clear consensus at an AfD is somehow errant. Collect (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not the page that looked fine. I uploaded a cropped version of the photo to get rid of the 'mugshot' look. When I tried to display it after uploading I was still getting the old version showing up on my browser. Since I have not uploaded a 'new version' of a picture before I thought I had done something wrong so I stopped what I was doing and asked for help, describing what I was seeing. MrX said what he was seeing was OK ie he was seeing the new picture ie 'it looked fine' meaning I had not screwed up the upload or done something else stupid. This exchange, which I very much doubt anyone else misread, was used, by you, on your talk page to say something else entirely. Does it make sense to you why people get annoyed when you take out of context edits and display them on your talk page as part of some personal campaign. Do you understand that when you take things out of context you are misrepresenting the words of another human being ? Do you understand that is wrong and is exactly the kind of thing you say you are trying to remove as BLP violations? These are not rhetorical questions I am interested in your response. Fully 50% of my conflict with you revolves around this issue which I see as misrepresentation and Maybe you do not see it as such but, like most social interactions, it is the perception of others that matters in such cases. If we can address that issue it would go a long way towards resolving out differences, at lease from my perspective, and maybe differences with others as well. I know there are other issues and other bad actors that I can do nothing about but partial solutions can help. AfD?? huh? If you are talking about PNAC I stated at the end of the AfD that I felt the argument of POVFORK was reasonable and while I could see how some saw SYNTH (Although not the SYNTH you were arguing) but I did not agree with it. That was and is my view on that topic. I have avoided it since and have no desire to rehash it here. Neither of our opinions are likely to change and no good can come of derailing what might be a productive conversation here and now. J bh  Talk  21:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The "new version" had "Booking Photo" clearly showing - that is a problem, but you appear not to have noticed it. And I suggest you read WP:SYNTH to see precisely its use in any BLP article is a problem as well.   Wikipedia editors are not supposed to state that "person A is connected to group B" and "group B is connected to Group C" therefore a table can "show"  (imply by SYNTH) that "person A is linked to Group C".  Is that clear enough at this point?  Nor did I see posts saying "this is SYNTH" but what Collect noted was not SYNTH, even though the end result is exactly the same" either.  Collect (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. I didn't notice the infobox caption mea culpa. I thanked you and removed the text when you pointed it out. That, however, is not what the discussion at BLPN was about nor was it what the exchange between MrX and I, which you copied here without attribution, was about. The issue brought up at BLPN was the photo itself and that is what the discussion was about. Would you care to comment on the issue of posting other people's edits, out of context and without attribution or notification. If you do not feel it is wrong would you please tell me why you do not think it is wrong particularly when people have told you repeatedly that they find it offensive? It seems to me that you are unconcerned about other Wikipedia editor's moral rights to their words. I am really trying to understand where you are coming from on this issue. I am not going to engage on the PNAC/SYNTH issue. That would be resurrecting a long dead horse and I refuse to bring about a Zombie Apocalypse. :) J bh  Talk  22:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If I wish to comment on a person, then I attribute the quote to that person. Where I am commenting on a general problem on Wikipedia I see no reason to inject personalities into a discussion.  You  might note that I have not been critical of you personally - but that I do find the rampant use of "attacking the living person by catenating items" to be violative of the spirit of not seeking to harm anyone.  In a few cases, some editors have, indeed, tried to make sure a living person "basically got away with (attempted) murder"  is far outside the ambit of editors who are trying to produce a neutrally aimed encyclopedia article.  By the way, I suggest if you show that poor photo to 100 people, 101 will say it is a mugshot.  Collect (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I can understand and in general can accept that idea. What I hope you can see is that in many cases the people whose words you use to illustrate a point or people who were also in the discussion see those quotes and can identify who said them. This can be a major problem if the point you are making, or more specificly the point you are representing the statement as making, is not what the person who wrote them intended or you fail to capture some nuance or context that changes the meaning of what was written. Most people, me included, would consider that situation a misrepresentation and since we are in an environment with a copyright notice on every edit screen a violation of their moral rights. Do you see where I am coming from on this. (I do want to make it very clear that I do not see any personal attack coming from you and I apologize if you consider anything I have said an attack such is not my intention. My goal was and is to have a frank discussion about a some if the issues I have been a part of or witnessed. I hope from this that we each can come to see the others viewpoint on this particular matter and from that both adjust our perceptions and behavior to decrease some of the tension in this whole drama. I know it is only a piece of the overall conflict, that you have problems with other editors' behavior and it is not just you doing stuff people dislike but it is a small thread I can pull on that might derail the downhill rush this situation has been on for the last few months. Then again I might just be an idealistic busybody with delusions of diplomacy but eh. :) Re the photo. Yes I think you are right. I figured I would try to clean it up but it really did not work well. The picture is out of the article and no one is pushing to put it back in. Since the original was uploaded as non-free media it should be deleted unless it gets moved to Commons as public domain - see the BLPN thread. (I can not comprehend Commons' deletion policies nor can I understand their ideas of what is worthwhile.)  J bh  Talk  23:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Copyright notices on every edit screen?  Comments on talk pages are not generally considered "copyrighted" as a rule, and Wikipedia's "warning" ("Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted.") refers to quoting copyrighted works sans proper attribution - our own words are thus not the issue.   Collect (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, I was not talking literal copyright infringement. What I was trying to get at is that this is a site where we are constantly reminded that people have rights to their words and to the original meaning of their words when they were written. Every day we decide whether to quote, paraphrase or use our own words. Editors here should be acutely aware of the value others put on their own words and should not lightly take liberties with them. To disassociate a quote from its author, particularly when some of those who are going to read it can identify or might be the original author is a moral wrong that I would think any Wikipedia editor would be sensitive to. To then use that same quote to imply or illustrate something not intended by the original author is, in my opinion, reprehensible because it makes those who read it and who can still identify the author think the author meant something that they in fact did not. Do you see? To bring it back to the concrete your quote of 'looks fine' and identification of the discussion makes the author of that quote as trivial. To say, as you did, that that quote supported the inclusion of the mugshot in the article is the same as saying 'MrX supported the use of a mugshot in an article' that is a completely false and disparaging statement. You took an out of context comment, posted it on your talk page, and not only misrepresented its meaning but, through that misrepresentation, slandered one of your long time opponents. Maybe you do not see that as the case, I hope not, but that is how I see it. I do not believe my view is unreasonable or even likely a minority view. I have raised this issue before and I hope I have been able to explain it properly this time. The TL;DR of all this is quoting people out of context to 'illustrate points' generally pisses them off and any Wikipedia editor should know you do not quote out of context. J bh Talk  00:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Intersection on numbers of pages - theoretical issues
Subtracting all projectspace pages (noticeboards may skew values of intersections as they cover a great many topics)

Editor A and Editor B "intersect" on, say, 140 pages. For editor A this is over 22% of all the pages he has ever edited. For editor B, it is 2.3% of all pages he has ever edited.

An editor C who has had a substantial number of interactions has, say, 30 interactions excluding projectspace - about 1% of all that editor's pages, and this amounts to .5% of B's pages. More to the point, editors A and C intersect a total of 10 times - or trivial percentages for either.

Query - is the number of times editor A just happens to edit a page previously edited by editor B (a very large majority of the actual intersections) an indication that editor B is somehow "attracting" editor A - or is it possible that editor A is, alas, following editor B?  In theory only, of course. Collect (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only way to answer the question is to look at actual editor interactions and time between interactions. You must then check for whether it is the first edit which is close together - this is the only kind of 'following' which could be considered stalking which is what you are talking about with your 'theoretical issue'. If it is not then it is possible that both editors had the article on their watchlists. You would also need to see of the article was being discussed where both editors were likely to notice it like at a noticeboard. If there are a lot of close interactions where the 'stalker' edited an article for the first time in close proximity to the 'stalked', and the article is not being discussed at a noticeboard, then you have a great case for harassment and stalking and should take it to ANI. If not all you have is meaningless numbers. J bh  Talk  01:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest that several people are quite aware of this editor - and for some reason just tell me to ignore a person who stalks me. Alas right now we can see how much faith I have in that system .   If a stalker routinely tells others how evil one is, one might note that as being interesting, no?  Collect (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take a wild guess that you might be referring to someone who has posed as an IP editor at AE, but who may perhaps actually have an active registered Wikipedia account. If that's the case, my advice would be to draw no attention to it here, but after your block is over, file a request at WP:SPI, requesting Checkuser, under the named account's name. If, on the other hand, my guess is incorrect (which won't be the first time I will have made an error), then I suggest waiting until your block is over and raising it publicly at ANI. But please do not do any of this unless you have good evidence to back it up. As for that evidence, I think that a key factor (and this gets directly to what you asked here) is whether or not there is a pattern of the other editor showing up just after you were at a page first. In other words, the chronology (who is first and who second) and timing (the time between you and the other editor) are important. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Kindly posit that I am "first mover" in the vast majority of the pages involved, and that I have been told that SPI would be useless (as I recall "vast majority" may be a bit of an understatement in the case at hand).  I am half tempted to produce a great wall of text showing that my positions on BLP has been upheld in a huge majority of BLPs on which I have edited - including my position that labeling folks by religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual considerations,  ideology etc.  is generally a really bad idea - and that we should generally use "self-identification" for living persons, and that this has been my consistent position for many years now.  Also read User:Collect/BLP   to see how one editor viewed BLP in the past - as something to make sure people see how evil the persons are.  On the other hand, if you find merit in the other editor's positions and rationales, please tell me so we might have a colloquy. Collect (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request archived
The Collect and others arbitration clarification request, which you were listed as a party to, has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 03:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shaun King (activist)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shaun King (activist). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Two Things
First, no apology is in order about spelling. It appears that you may have left the space out of my name. That is trivial. Even if you actually misspelled it, that is trivial, although I have always reserved the right to complain about spelling. It is trivial because the name has been misspelled for two centuries. The correct spelling is MacLennan in Scotland or McLennan in Ireland, but my great-great-great-grandfather was illiterate, and so the spelling was done by a New York State clerk who was probably English-American and knew little of the spelling of names elsewhere in the British Isles. No apology required. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Second, the Murder of Anni Dewani, which you have recently began editing, illustrates why DRN moderators cannot always be neutral. In particular, moderators cannot be neutral on BLP policy, and we know that Shrien Dewani is a living person and was acquitted of the crime. For history, moderated dispute resolution was attempted, and I couldn't be neutral on BLP policy or on reliable source policy. I eventually had to fail the moderation because the editors resumed edit-warring as soon as the article came off page-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you.   My background on BLP is pretty clear - even if ArbCom has officially ruled my record "poor" on exceedingly weak evidence :(.   Moderators, of course, ought not be "neutral" on well-defined policy issues, but should not be seen as having any "editorial opinions."  And my editing of the article was a single attempt to actually bring the article in accord with policy - and this is one article where "add all the information one can find" is precisely the worst solution IMO.  Too many editors shout "more is better" even where it is clear that such a mode is a major problem on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ali Khamenei
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ali Khamenei. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wallace
I did a bit of rework. Whats the readability index now/where do you check it? Regards, Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, if you know what vocational confluence is, please enlighten me, it is bugging me now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

See  which gives you an easy way to check readability of articles . And I would have to be fully enlightened to define the term "vocational confluence" as it does not appear to have a definition. is the only book found by Google using the term ... Collect (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well meditate long enough and the answer might arise, Regards! Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP help request
Would you please give your opinion on some requests made by the subject of a BLP at Rick Alan Ross. It is part of the Scientology DS so I do not know if you want to get tangled up in it but I thought you opinion would be helpful and maybe you can bring a perspective on the issue we are missing. Thank you. J bh Talk  13:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Commented - a person is a "reliable source" for his own written statements per SPS - seems the simplest course of action. I knew John Campbell, and so would not touch the topic with a ten foot pole.  Collect (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you for taking a look. I completely understand not wanting to get involved in the topic. Cheers.  J bh  Talk  15:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

proofreaders needed?



 * PG&E officials say nobody opened the damn up and the water simply ran out.

And not that rare since we have spill checkers and not proofreaders and factcheckers for reliable sources ... Collect (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Maurice Cloud
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Maurice Cloud. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey
I've been an occasional editor and I think I was away when this ban stuff happened, but it looks like a ludicrous railroad job. You're one of the best editors I've seen on Wikipedia and this place is better off the more active you are. My condolences on your personal struggles, and screw the dickless IP trolls. That the losers bother to go so far out of their way to stalk and harass you like that just underscores what a huge positive impact you've had. VictorD7 (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the fact I am a "target" indicates that I have value . Collect (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Violation of your topic ban, again
These edits to a discussion of Kevin McCarthy (California politician) on Jimbo's talk page violate your topic ban of "making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace". I won't bother with an AE request, but will leave it to talk page stalkers to decide whether to act on your consistent and unrepentant boundary-testing. 2600:1000:B003:7F86:1B03:6F18:857E:A7FF (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ( I did block Collect for breach of his topic ban a few months ago, but ) I have absolutely no interest in dubious "gotchas" from IPs. Log into your account if you expect to be taken seriously. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC).
 * My edits did not in any what whatsoever deal with any US political issue nor personage, and this sort of harassment gets old really fast.  This sock who clearly does not wish to actually show who he or she really is, is the lowest form of life on Earth, in my opinion. Collect (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted
Hi Collect. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. 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, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Your revert on Gary Cooper
When a contributor takes the trouble to research five solid book references - including one from Gary Cooper's wife acknowledging the relationship with Lawler, and then it is reverted TWICE with the claim that the addition is UNSOURCED: ie trashing the hard work of others and then making a false claim to justify doing so -- that's trolling by any measure. And what other reason than homophobia would you give for it? Whim, perhaps? You were wrong to revert because (a) the contriuction was a worthwhile addition to the article and (b) you justified his behaviour by doing so. You should have left it and talked to me first. This is why good contributors leave Wikipedia. Engleham (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh: and I'd appreciate -- having spent much time researching the addition -- you doing me the courtesy of reverting your revert. Engleham (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that I state what I found in examining the sources given on the talk page of the biography, which is where the discussion ought to be.  And as I noted, calling any editor "homophobic" is not wise under any circumstances.  When one finds what might be a copyright violation or plagiarism, by the way, it is proper for one to remove it rather than let it fester. And asking me to undo the removal of what may well be a violation of Wikipedia policy is unlikely to sway me in this matter. Collect (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gordon Grant (artist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fantasia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Piers Gav
Hi Collect. You removed a sic in the Piers Gaveston article. Fair point on the long S, but the main problem with their motto was it doesn't appear to be correct Latin re. dilixisse vs. dilexisse. Where we present a translation, albeit by a normally reliable source, that doesn't add a sic, shouldn't we add one in the absence of a reliable source that's similarly Latin-anal? [Full disclosure, my current Latin skills are limited to Googling]. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. "Sic" is very rarely an appropriate item to use - it is only used to indicate that a specific error is in a source and is not the fault of the person using it now. Often one sees it used for a spelling error in a transcript of a spoken word - and it is invariably wrong in those cases as one might get an implication that the speaker made an error, and not the person transcribing the spoken word.    supports "dilixisse" as the "perfect active infinitive "of "diligo" ("to love") and Wiktionary chooses "dilexisse" as the "perfect active infinitive" of "diligo".  In short - no actual error as far as I can tell here. Collect (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Thanks for sorting that out.  Bromley86 (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deaths in 2015
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deaths in 2015. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this "plagiarism"?
Talk:Paul Theodore Arlt demonstrates what appears to be specific and deliberate plagiarism - using a Washington Post source in the first place, grabbing more than 150 words from it, and then not citing it at all. is the initial edit for that article. There is a pattern here over several articles from the single editor. Collect (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: An admin has officially called this section an "aspersion."  IIRC, Jimbo has stated that plagiarism can not be tolerated on Wikipedia, which is a much bigger "aspersion."
 * Plagiarism is extremely unethical and absolutely grounds for dismissal from the project. We should reject it with every fiber of our being. 
 * But neither does that mean we should tolerate or condone destructive and unethical attitudes towards scholarship.
 * Plagiarism is never the right thing to do.
 * Plagiarism is a form of lying, of pretending, of fraud upon the reader.
 * It is the moral crime of pretending that someone else's work is your own which amounts to plagiarism.
 * And so on - all verba Jimbonis. Collect (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

compare
Nine Mile Portage with  Nine Mile Portage Heritage Trail


 *  This recreation trail is based on an ancient overland route created by the early aboriginal people of our area. One of the oldest known European records of the route appears on a 1688 map by Italian Vincenzo Coronelli labelled as 'Portage de dix Lieuel'.  This portage came to be known as the 'Nine Mile Portage' by the British Military, which employed it strategically during the War of 1812.  After the war, use continued until the first roads and the railway were established.  The old portage then fell into disuse and eventually the land was sold to settlers as the concessions were developed.  But it was never completely forgotten.
 *  Opened in 2003, the initial route mainly follows sidewalks and roadways. In time, it is intended to develop the Trail to follow the original historic route as closely as possible. At all times, regardless of the stage of development, the rights of private property owners must be strictly observed. No right-of-way exists along most of the historic route of the Nine Mile Portage.
 * This web page is compiled through the efforts of the Nine Mile Portage Working Group, composed of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, Friends of Historical Fort Willow, Township of Springwater, Simcoe County Trails, Simcoe County Historical Association and the Rotary Club of Barrie, who generously sponsored trail signs, granite markers and interpretive signage, and granite benches. Special mention to Keith Bacon for his supplied reseach and resources.

This article does at least cite the page it so fulsomely borrows from. Collect (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Bachman-Wilson House with (inter alia) The NYT


 * The front façade of concrete blocks has an almost fortress-like appearance to ensure privacy from the street. The house is built with Way-Lite concrete blocks and Philippine mahogany trim. It has a second story, rare in a Usonian house, with cantilevered balconies. The living room has a built-in banquette facing a wooded scene through a wall of 10 foot high glass panes, symbolizing a transcendental pew set before the altar of nature.
 * The public space is a dramatic focal point, with walls of glass and an open floor plan. Cut-out wooden panels of abstracted forms over 24 clerestory windows provide an unobtrusive yet restrained decorative touch to this lavish space. These recall Native American geometric motifs as well as stylized forms that may be based in nature. Construction was completed in 1956.


 * At the Bachman-Wilson House, for example, the front facade of concrete blocks has an almost fortresslike appearance to ensure privacy from the street. 
 * Built with concrete blocks and Philippine mahogany, it has a second story, rare in a Usonian house, with two bedrooms and cantilevered balconies. 
 *  The public space is a dramatic focal point, with walls of glass and an open floor plan. Cut-out wooden panels of abstracted forms over 24 clerestory windows provide an unobtrusive yet restrained decorative touch to this lavish space. These recall Native American geometric motifs as well as stylized forms that may be based in nature. 

Note the minor similarities in wording? The NYT is listed as an also-see type of article - but not used as a reference, even though the borrowing is clear.Collect (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * These are copyvio instances. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CCI is thataway ---> Talk page polemics accomplish nothing. If you think it is a big deal open a CCI if not why post about it?  J bh  Talk  18:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But, of course, ordinarily one doesn't just jump to CCI or other action without validating that others see the same issue. ??Polemics?? Not so much. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See these two threads [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen#Tired_of_Harassment] [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen#more_plagiarism_noted] over on Bish's talk page where this seems to have initially kicked off and was already discussed. J bh  Talk  18:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The second one (FLW house) is not related to that editor. And note - the brouhaha came about precisely because I followed the process for reporting copyright issues -- and then was accused wrongly of having it in for an editor.  Did you not notice my post at CCI?  BTW, do you have any idea what the backlog is there?  Try on the order of multiple years .   Collect (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I seldom look at CCI, I saw this brew up on Bishonen's talk page. The best thing is to fix what you find, report it to where it should be reported or tag it for other editors to deal with. All of the effort spent on talk page posting could have been used to clean up the problem and would have generated much less drama. Wikipedia has processes, imperfect - some near pointless - they may be. It is better to use them or work around the dysfunction than to engage in point-making on talk pages. - Free advice, worth about half what you paid for it. Cheers. PS - hope all is well with you and yours.  J bh  Talk  21:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * IIRC, you raised the issue of going to CCI. I had, in fact, done so ab initio.   The problem arose when the editor who was specifically automatically notified of the CCI listing argued that I must have made it up in some way just to get at him.   If you have never read Jimbo's positions on plagiarism - try reading them.   My "aspersions" are vastly gentler. Collect (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about aspersions. If you raised it at CCI and nothing was done - then nothing was done. If you still feel strongly about it then AN/ANI would be the next step. Everyone who has been on Wikipedia for more than a moment and everyone who ever wrote a paper at uni gets that plagiarism is bad. You do not need to convince anyone - I hope! - of that. The only way to get it removed is to a) do it your self b) tag it for someone else to do c) engage Wikipedia's processes to clean it up and/or block the culprit. None of that can happen on your talk page. How do you expect a thread on your talk page will fix the problem? It passes a bit of non-productive time but how does it address the problem? J bh  Talk  21:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you forgot - I have stalkers who assert that almost any edit I make which can remotely be connected to any political topic is something to waste hours of my time at AE for. I even had one complain about me mentioning Corbyn and Cameron in the UK, for God's sake!  In short if I do anything at all, someone will post anonymously demanding I be blocked for whatever trivial reason they can think of to waste hours of my time as a bare minimum.  Is this clear at all?  Now how the hell do you expect me to "do it myself" when the reason why I damn well can not is on this page in the first place?    Really? Now I ask -- how the hell does your post alleviate the problem?  Really? Collect (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Charles S. Strong at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)