User talk:Collect/Archive 35

Wouldja believe ---
edit summary ''If only the rest of Wikipedia took this course. Maybe one day. For now, we'll stick with the conventional format''

To justify calling Henry Gibson, whose children are known by the last name "Gibson" ...

James Bateman in bold as the first words of his biography? Noting this is not done for any other person I can find who was widely known as a "stage name" whose children also bore the 'stage name" as their last name in their Wikipedia article! BTW, this "James Bateman" is not even on the dab page!

It takes all kinds, I suppose ... Collect (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Did he change his legal name to Henry Gibson? According to the article, this was his stage name. Of course, you are welcome to prove me wrong. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually -- you deleted the stage name link in the lead, if you noticed.
 * And most people would regard:
 *  They had three sons - Jonathan David Gibson, an executive at Universal Pictures, Charles Alexander Gibson, a director and visual effects supervisor, and James Gibson, a screenwriter.
 * As indicating that his family used the name "Gibson". You are, of course, free to prove that claim wrong.  You would, alas, have to prove the Los Angeles Times   and other news articles wrong as well.   Care to try?  If the children use the name "Gibson" do you not agree that using "Bateman" as the surname is  ... um ... ludicrous at best? Collect (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A fine observation indeed, but according to the New York Times, his real name has always remained James Bateman. See article talk page for link. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And the fact is that you have not given even a single example of a person only known for their stage name -- having a different name at the start of the article for which no redirect even exists on Wikipedia and where their own children use the stage name as a surname.  None!  At this point you have a very severe case of WP:IDHT I fear, so go off and find some actual Wikipedia examples which follow your claims.  Then we can discourse. Collect (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Malibu land records: "Henry Gibson." US Social Security records: "Henry Gibson." Malibu uses for "James Bateman": none. Social Security records for him as "James Bateman": none. Case for him not using "Henry Gibson" as his legal name? None. Collect (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

== Please comment on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany in infoboxes#rfc_C79C105|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany... ==

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany in infoboxes. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On the List of ministers of the Universal Life Church page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=706557487 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F706557487%7CList of ministers of the Universal Life Church%5D%5D Ask for help])

Rick Alan Ross
The content of the Rick Alan Ross article is now the subject of a Dispute Resolution notice.Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On the other hand - you could simply accept the fact that your personal views do not have WP:CONSENSUS for that BLP, of course. And you could have notified me when you posted at DR which is what you were supposed to do at the outset.  Cheers.  Collect (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cos Cob, Connecticut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bayport. 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) 10:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David Irving
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Irving. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Mediation
You were added. ::VM stacking?, read last comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Vladimir_Putin#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediation Saint Aviator  lets talk 00:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Anni Dewani
The post to Jimbo Wales's talk page is sockpuppetry by topic-banned user Lane99. I have reported the IP (which is not an unregistered editor but a topic-ban evader.) There is also a request for a formal site-ban for Lane99 for persistent sockpuppetry about this topic. When you said to take it to the other talk page, by which you presumably mean the article talk page, I partly disagree. The puppeteer shouldn't take it anywhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the "new for IPs" Jimbo page  as I am fully aware of the Lane99 nonsense (I !voted for the siteban). Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The request for the site-ban (by me) was archived without closure but with consensus for the site-ban. I have requested a closure at WP:AN.  So you are saying that what is new is Lane99 using IP sockpuppets rather than throwaway accounts.  As you know, I have stated that there was no real judicial finding that the murder was for hire.  South African criminal law is common law, not civil law, and real judicial findings are only made in adversarial cases.  (Civil law courts may conduct their own investigation.  Common law courts rely on adversarial proceedings.)  A confession doesn't result in a judicial finding.  The only adversarial proceeding was S. v. Dewani, and it resulted in judicial findings that the case against Mr. Dewani wasn't there, because it was all based on the conflicting testimony of lying criminals.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 *  Read my edits and posts thereon - we are on the same wavelength though I am a tad stricter on removing the BLP violations that some might be. I have no doubts at all that this IP is Lane99, if that is your question.  Collect (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We are saying the same thing. At this point the BLP violation is that Lane99 keeps insisting that this was a murder for hire, and, since he says nothing about a search for the mystery arranger, he is implying that an acquitted person is guilty.  (If it was a murder for hire, we don't know who hired them, because we do know that one person didn't.  But it wasn't a murder for hire, because that was the claim made by lying criminals, and it isn't a BLP violation to describe them as lying criminals.)  Retrial isn't going to happen, either in this case or with O.J. Simpson.  The difference is that the case against Simpson was stronger than this case, in fact good enough for a civil verdict.  The case against Dewani fell apart under review by Dewani's counsel and by the judge.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: WP:BLP - you might note the "interesting edits" at Edward Furlong by IPs . Collect (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vladimir Putin
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vladimir Putin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Peyton Manning proposal and straw poll
This is to make you aware of this discussion regarding the "royal family" content dispute at Peyton Manning, where you recently edited or commented on the talk page. Your participation to resolve the matter would be welcome. Tracescoops (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Question
about this. What is actually important to you? (i am really asking) Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I strongly suspect all the current "discussions" will have no actual impact on what the WMF legally "has" to do. I do know that we can not expect any real Executive Director to follow "commands" from the herd of cats comprising Wikipedia . Some of the material bandied within Wikipedia has nothing to do with the legitimate decision-making process necessary for any actual Board of Directors.  They may well have made outrageous mistakes, but we do not have any reason to believe the cat herd would not have made equivalent mistakes either.  I specifically find some who write in a tabloidish manner about the real issues are actually serving neither the WMF nor Wikipedia in the long run.  You will note my earlier concerns in the Doc James discussions that the "elections" for community representatives on the board should actually be elections rather than "choose any three from this list" suggestions.


 * Wikipedia should aim, rather, at actually following its own policies strongly, and getting rid of any groups which seem adore the scent of blood more than writing an encyclopedia suitable for long-term use by those who do not need an absolutely complete list of Pokémon figures.


 * The concern of WMF must be to make the foundation financially viable in the long-term, which includes as a strong secondary aim the growth of Wikipedia usage as a primary center for students and others seeking specific factual information. (I find the "surveys" in the past could have been written by any high school senior  and thus, IMO only, were a substantial waste of effort.)


 * So to get to your question: What is important for Wikipedia is to actually deal with writing a long-term stable and factual encyclopedia, and end the frequent short-term personality-driven contretemps so evidently present.    What is important for WMF is financial stability, concomitant with promoting the goals of Wikipedia (here I note I am using "Wikipedia" where I might well state "all Wikimedia projects, of course).


 * Now tell me where you differ - and we can have actual discourse instead of the name-calling so often found  Collect (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering. (the pokeman thing made me laugh) My question was authentic and I am always happy to try to talk - ( was the one who reached out and asked you what you meant, right?  I just really wanted to understand where you were coming from.   I hear you on what is important for WP and for WMF, yes.  I don't know that I would agree that goal 2 for WP (ending the long term interpersonal disputes) is top priority and am not sure it is even possible (it would be great, for sure, though), but other than that I agree with the broad ideas you lay out there, sure.
 * A lot of what I have been concerned about and discussing on Jimbo's page, is keeping the WMF and WP in sync. How the WMF invests in technology matters to us, I think - it affects us. I won't presume you have been following what I've been saying there, but I am really unhappy with the disparity between what Doc James and the board have been saying about why he was dismissed.  I respect Doc James and am ready to believe his claims that the ED/board were making significant plans for technology without talking to us about that - and the steadfast refusal by the board and ED to clearly disclose what the plans have been, only adds to my willingness to believe what he has said.  I have been asking Jimmy to work toward a joint statement with James, and have been asking both Jimmy and Lila for a disclosure of what has gone on, so I don't have to "believe" anything - so we all have the story that makes sense (hopefully to parties on all sides).
 * How do you feel/think about all that? Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (from actual experience) Often, only one or two board members actually know the details - often the others are given "executive summaries" which (at their best) cover all the salient issues, and (at their worst) basically are "cover your ass" documents which are designed to say as little as possible. We have no way of finding out which case applies with the WMF, and we are unlikely ever to find out.  By the way, I would be amazed if Mr. Wales ever saw the detailed documents, but he likely saw a "summary" only. Collect (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I hear that yes.  Do you see the concern about the WMF making big tech plans without talking to us, or do you think it is out of line somehow? Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (Actually thinking about this)  People on Wikipedia are likely not to understand the long-term needs and goals of the foundation - so I doubt the WMF will open up its internal discussions to the community here. What would be nice, though, is for "surveys" to actually deal with specific suggestions instead of being treated as data to be quantified, and then ignored :)  A number of editors here would have technical and editorial input of actual value for the WMF - the problem is that "consensus suggestions" are (as a rule) wertlos.  The only way for it to work, I think, would be for the WMF to, on its own, seek out the editors here who have the most concrete suggestions, to have them expand on their suggestions bearing in mind the value of the idea to the long-term goals of the WMF, the relative costs and benefits, etc.   What absolutely will never work is for the "community" to "elect" an interlocutory board, as it would likely end up somewhat less functional than the existing "ArbCom."   Does this make sense? Collect (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (sorry, this is kind of long, but we are getting to the heart of the matter) Thanks for the preface!  Working backward - I have been thinking about some kind of "interlocutory" thing set up by the community to be some sort of body to deal with the WMF and I have a hard time seeing that work, on a bunch of levels.  I hear that. I think we might need something new though. I'm thinking about it.  More on that below.
 * The middle stuff about the WMF not being very responsive to what some editors say they want, software-wise (I hear that a lot) - the failure of their current process to create what we need (this talk interface!), and the suggestion of a better way forward. I hear that.   I think the latter happens, informally, and some people in the community are very involved with the WMF, on the technical side and admin side.  (Like User:WhatamIdoing, a longtime WP:MED editor, has been working a lot on liaison activities related to VisualEditor, as a WMF employee or contractor) (total aside - do you use VE?  Do you think VE is important to WP?  I don't use it, but I think I understand why it is important)
 * Now to the bigger picture - the wants and needs thing. I agree that lots of people in the editing community probably don't understand much about the WMF at all, much less its hardware and software needs and goals. I only started becoming more aware of it when Doc James got kicked off the board.  I don't know if you knew much about him before he ran, but he has done amazing things outside of his editing (which is prodigious) to get medical content to the public. He even set up a nonprofit affiliate to do things like pay for translation of health content into languages in the developing world, has been advocating for better software for mobile reading, and even brings that to his editing, where he manually fixes articles to make them more translatable and more useful on a mobile).  I explored the world of the WMF a bunch since he got thrown off the board, and it has been... eye-opening.  To be frank there is a still a lot of stuff I don't understand. (Did you know that they actually hold "office hours" for us, where you can tell them what kind of software you would want or ask other questions?  Amazing.  See here. I learned about these office hours while I was reading some team notes and they were saying "We are trying to talk to the community and even held office hours, but no one - no one - came"  - which was just so strange to me. They hold these office hours over on meta and using IRC, which baffles me.  Bubbles (mine and theirs) not touching - at all.)
 * Does the editing community understand the needs of goals of WMF? I don't think so - not much.   You mentioned "needs" and "goals".  "Needs" is always an interesting word - it signifies literal life-and-death stuff (I need water), to things essential for doing something you have chosen to do  (I need to take a shower so i can get to work), to desires (I need that Bugatti).  The "goals" thing is even more interesting. I do think the WMF and the editing community share a goal with regard to putting out the encyclopedia, we need each other and are aligned when it comes to that.   What are its goals and what does it think it needs to realize them?   That is kind of the crux of things.
 * The WMF as an organization has (like every entity) a goal of surviving - and to survive one adapts, and there are pressures on the WMF now (what Lila called "existential threats") that are leading the WMF to consider adapting in ways that have little to nothing to do with the encyclopedia. (making wikipedia.org a portal through which to find knowledge)  WMF has limited resources.  So - should the WMF spend money on stuff to keep itself relevant, and to do whatever it can to make more and more knowledge available to the public, or should it invest its resources in making WP (its past and current flagship) better (easier to edit, easier to talk to people, available in new ways to the public, etc).  (I used "should" there on purpose b/c it is a crappy word. ) What is the "right" balance and who "should"  decide?
 * Those are kind of bullshitty questions because the reality is that the WMF will do whatever it likes (it does have to be aware of its good name so it can attract donations and grants, of course.  That is life-and-death). But it is not accountable to the editing community outside of hand-wavy and useless "should" stuff.  (Some editors think it "should" be accountable)    What I think is that if editors who care about this want to influence the board, they need to create some new way to advocate better at the WMF.  I am not sure how many people care nor what percentage of active editors they are, and what the most effective vehicle for that advocacy would be.  But I am starting to think that for some part of the editing community, some kind of "interlocutory body" is going to have to be created, that will speak for itself (I don't think we could set it up so that it could in any way speak for "the editing community")
 * So - do you care, and would you want to be involved in figuring that out? If your answer is no, I would completely respect that.
 * That was a lot, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Lots to ponder. Fortunately, the WMF has an official "statement of purpose" in its bylaws:
 * The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. 
 * In coordination with a network of individual volunteers and our independent movement organizations, including recognized Chapters, Thematic Organizations, User Groups, and Partners, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.

It does not say that individual projects can not "make a profit" at all, and the term "Partners" basically can mean whatever the WMF board wishes it to mean . It does say the end-users will not be charged. And "educational content" is a sufficiently broad area as to encompass whatever the board thinks might be in any way "educational." In short - the WMF could print the equivalent of the NYT and sell ads - as long as it does not charge the actual readers for the information contained therein. And the bylaws say that any Trustee may be removed for any reason at all - or even for no reason at all. So much for any "community power" that may be asserted. What would be needed is a "Public Encyclopedia Editors Union" of some sort as an "Interlocutory Group" - but herding cats is something I had to do for a very long time, and I think it unlikely to be easier now . The word "Wiki" in any form can not be part of such a group, and (as editors do not get paid) its ability to negotiate with any other group would be circumscribed a great deal. Wikipedia is not even named as a core responsibility in the bylaws of the WMF as such - meaning the leverage of the community is that of a flea trying to move an elephant with a 1mm lever. Collect (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that is all clear. I am hearing all that.
 * I want to go back, if I may, to something you wrote in your initial response - namely "getting rid of any groups which seem adore the scent of blood more than writing an encyclopedia ".  Would you say more about that? Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have not seen some editors who seem far more interested in being "against" editors not in their group, clique, position area, or however one wishes to describe such behaviour of editors whose opinions seem to be based substantially on the premise of automatic opposition to some specific editors, and agreement with some specific editors on an automatic basis, rather then dealing objectively with policies and guidelines, then you have been remarkably blessed. IMHO, questions about policy and guidelines should stand on their own merits, not on the basis of getting brownie points by attacking other editors. Ever see anything similar? Collect (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * sure i have seen it - up close and personal, as there is a little gang of jytdog-haters. :)  but it seems to me that "getting rid" of folks who are here for the dramah is nigh onto as-impossible-as herding cats to form some kind of editors union.  How do you see getting rid of them? Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * One easy method would be to actually disconnect comments from the person posting the comments - which sounds absolutely weird  but which would mean we could finally remove "editor identity commentary" from general talk page posts and discussions. Article edits would, of course, have to be identifiable as to who made the edits, but RfC comments which would finally and truly be divorced from comments about specific editors holding specific opinions.  This means going well past the weak concept of "no personal attacks" into "no personal asides about any editors".    Just as Step One. Collect (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Interestingly radical! You mean doing something like having a randomized key generated for every edit (in any space) and that key is what would show in your signature, so nobody would know who was saying or doing what?  Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Only for spaces with signed comments - the edits in article space would still have "real editor" attached for legal reasons. As for "coding" - yes, I knew Whitfield Diffie many years ago. Collect (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * super interesting. i don't know if you need to forgo it for article space.  the key would be somewhere, and the license is valid as soon as "i" click save.   good-faith talk discussions become wierd...   two people can't know they are talking to each other in any normal sense to try to reach consensus and those kinds of things do happen all the time in the good way... but i guess folks ~could~ get used to even usernames going away in Talk (it's already anonymous).   But the thing I can't reckon is that the problem that SOCK tries to solve, becomes unsolveable, no? Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

SOCK deals with people trying to pretend that they are "multiple people" - by basically removing the ability of people to do that, the SOCK issue becomes a tad moot . What will count is the policies invoked and determination of whether the policies apply or do not apply in a given case - and who the people are who invoke the policy should have nothing at all to do with whether the policy actually applies. You will see who edits the actual articles, and determination of consensus may be more interesting - but already in too many cases "consensus" represents "groups" of one sort or another finding out who has a majority from article to article or issue to issue. Perhaps the weighing of the policy arguments would need "outside parties" to judge, but that would likely be an improvement over the current system. It would certainly mean a person who pretends to be 8 different people would gain naught advantage - and when they see they gain nothing by using socks, that problem would diminish. I think using "pending changes" would work well with this "radical" (as you term it) concept. Collect (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm... but good closers look at the number of arguments along the lines of X when they weigh consensus (strength of arguments and whether the strong arguments are being found compelling by multiple people - this is the heart of the whole consensus principle.  There are often multiple good arguments.   I am still thinking about this.  For sure. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I might not be as sanguine as you are about a plenitude of "good closers" alas. Collect (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peyton Manning
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peyton Manning. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Anticommunist killings in Argentina
If the killings in Argentina where not anticommunist in nature then surely all the sources supporting the articles on Operation Condor, Dirty War and the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance would therefore be total fabrications, no? 86.178.165.10 (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The source given does not support any claim that this met the requirements set forth in the topic sentence. And the fact that "other articles exist" is considered a very weak argument. Collect (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that there are series of sourced articles on the project documenting a US instigated programme of anticommunist murders in Argentina is a "weak argument"? The source given supported the claim that 30,000 murders occurred in Argentina over that time period. Must have been the tooth fairy. 86.178.165.10 (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The source given did not support what you apparently "know to be the truth." Wikipedia, alas, requires strong reliable sources and not just what editors know to be the truth. Collect (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You read the telegraph article I linked in my previous comment where they directly mention that the actions in Argentina were performed on the basis of anticommunist action? You're totally not stonewalling Collect, are you? 86.178.163.99 (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The article furnished as a source did not directly support "deliberate killing of people because they were communists" - so you seem to be seeking to "right great wrongs". Collect (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Crabb
Hi, thanks for your edit on Talk:Stephen Crabb. I think you might have put your comment about the blog in the wrong place - I would also welcome your input on this editor claiming that a letter to a local paper is a WP:RS. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Anything on Wordpress is a "blog" by definition. And the petition site is also in the nature of a "blog" in that it invites people to write petitions.  Neither site is under any "editorial control and oversight" by a reliable source publisher.  And "letters to the editor" are almost invariably not usable except if the writer is notable in the field, and then only for his or her opinions sourced and cited as opinions.  Collect (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peyton Manning
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peyton Manning. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sizer
Thanks for your interest in the article, I don't have much experience of BLP but I thought the allegation against him was rank unfairness. Where would I stand if other editors make a unilateral edit today as threatened? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Post at WP:AN/I asking admins to examine the acts of that other editor. Wikipedia has some major flaws, alas. Collect (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It makes the Battle of Bazentin Ridge feels like a birthday present....Keith-264 (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency
has an editor who has specifically opined "The Daily Mail has repeatedly (and properly) been ruled unreliable at RSN discussions", "No, the Daily Mail is not a good source for that material. That newspaper cannot be trusted in this context ", and (regarding me) "Repeatedly defends the Daily Mail as a reliable source." (although I specifically oppose using it for matters of "celebrity gossip" or "contentious claims about living persons" as that editor damn well knows). Also "Any editor with concerns about a specific use of the Daily Mail is encouraged to post that concern here, where there will inevitably be considerable support (and only a small minority of bizarre contrarian nonsense) for deleting any material that relies solely on such a dodgy source", "- it is difficult to imagine a situation in which it would be both possible and necessary to cite the Daily Mail." etc.

And that editor not only uses the Daily Mail for material about a living person - he even manages to have the Daily Mail say something it does not say (that the person's acts were indicative of anti-Semitism on his part).


 *  2015 Sizer was censured by the Church and banned from using social media for six months after he promoted what some considered anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that implicated Israel in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Source:
 * Yesterday Bishop of Guildford the Right Reverend Andrew Watson said that the vicar’s campaigning on the Middle East was ‘no longer compatible with his ministry as a parish priest.’
 * The bishop declared: ‘I do not believe that his motives are anti-Semitic; but I have concluded that, at the very least, he has demonstrated appallingly poor judgment in the material he has chosen to disseminate, particularly via social media, some of which is clearly anti-Semitic.
 * ‘By associating with or promoting subject matter, which is either ambiguous in its motivation, or, worse still, openly racist, he has crossed a serious line. I regard these actions as indefensible.
 * The bishop set a series of conditions for Mr Sizer keeping his job.
 * They include a promise from the vicar to stop using social media entirely for six months, to stop writing and speaking about the Middle East and its history, and to stay away from conferences that promote an anti-Zionist agenda. He has also undertaken to stop writing or preaching anything on the subject, to avoid posting links to articles on the subject, and to prevent anyone else from speaking on his behalf on the matter.

The action was taken by a specific named bishop, does not assert a "ban" but rather a promise to stay away from "social media" and specifically does not assert anti-Semitism on the part of the living person involved.

But what the person say to me?
 * This is just for starters. I have to wonder why you are unable to see support for an assertion re anti-Semitism in these sources. Perhaps you can alleviate some obvious concerns in that respect. 

Seemingly quite snidely accusing me of supporting "anti-Semitism" of all the absurd concepts. So we have a person who hates the Daily Mail - using the Daily Mail, and actually substantively mis-using it! Then accusing a person who is absolutely not "anti-Semitic" of possibly being some sort of "sekrit anti-Semite" (how else can one parse "Perhaps you can alleviate some obvious concerns in that respect"?)    Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Talking to air
You'll note that your comment now looks like you're talking to yourself. You can thank Smallbones for that feature. - 2001:558:1400:10:853D:41:6647:D240 (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Apologies, by the way, for assuming some level of confrontational intent on your question to the guy asking about Romania. Upon re-reading your question, I was inferring too much based on my current mood, which wasn't fair to you at all. - 2001:558:1400:10:853D:41:6647:D240 (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lindsay Lohan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lindsay Lohan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited János Kis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian. 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) 11:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy Easter
Main Page history/2016 March 27, with thanks for your ARCA statement and the elucidation on my talk! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And all best wishes for the season to you as well! Collect (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Wyandanch, New York
Size matters? This is where it started, at over 315k. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * An editor after my own heart . Collect (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I even tried to get folks to cut down on a "British line of succession" list - to no avail at the time . Why do editors think "longer is better" when it simply means adding trivia to articles? Collect (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, how about 10k on masturbation cut from an 80k biography on a Christian pioneer? A deletionist's wet dream... Drmies (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What about my long fights to keep editors from pointedly saying Jews have "dual loyalties" and labelling folks as "Jewish" as often as possible? Even now if you follow my spoor you will find me trying to make sure that articles do not make claims which are not even in the "sources" given.  Sigh - I am getting too old for this -- some of those warriors had some folks convinced I do not understand or follow WP:BLP but their own edits betray them <g>. Including examples of outright plagiarism, and complete falsification of sources (it helps that I can muddle through some other languages for sure).  Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh you deserve a medal--but you can't beat (off) 10k on masturbation and you know it. Best, Drmies (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL ... no - but who could? Collect (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Close of RfC
Your notice to my Talk page of your questions concerning RfC close procedures. The RfC was closed on the basis of a prevailing consensus of multiple editors who were not in agreement with your position. RfCs are not evaluated as "votes" as you call them. In this case multiple editors made reasoned arguments defending their point and forming a consensus. You may follow the instructions at the top of the page for Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure as shown in item 3 listed there concerning re-evaluations. If you prefer then you could also have the option of starting a WP:DRN concerning your edits since there is currently no open RfC on the Talk page of the article you have been editing. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Might I ask about your experience in closing RfCs?   You stated a clear consensus which seems, in my experience of well over 40K+ edits, not to be a consensus, and failed to note whatsoever the policy issues raised in the RfC at all.  Is it usual in your experience to have a non-admin with under 800 edits and under four months experience to close a contested RfC as a "clear consensus" when others do not see such a consensus, and to not even mention policy issues which were raised in the RfC?  Would   agree with your close, for instance?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to file a DRN if you prefer. The RfC close was based on reviewing the participating comments and on a reading of the article as well and the close also mentioned that "fringe" aspects of the material which were discussed in the body of the article. There is no reason for you not to submit your disputation for WP:DRN and elaborate your concerns there. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Only four months here and you are a Wikilawyer First Class - usually non-admins will self-revert their close when someone finds the close contentious, alas. I really ask you not to force a DRN on this one. Collect (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , you should not be closing any RfCs, period. Do not do that again. If in the future you attempt to close any RfC, I will add that to the growing list of disruptive and incompetent editing you have done over the past four months, and report you to an adminstrators' noticeboard. See my final warning on your talk page. I advise you to revert your close as requested by, who is one of the most experienced editors on Wikipedia. If you do not self-revert, this will not go to WP:DRN, it will go to WP:ANI and the probably outcome, given your continued disruption, will be a block from editing, possibly indefinite. Softlavender (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jennifer Lawrence
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jennifer Lawrence. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much
Hi, Collect. Thank you for your helpful edits on the Michael Laucke regarding British English. If you have completed that task, please mark it as done in the GA Review Toolbox section. As nominator, this would be very helpful to me in keeping track of what is done and what is not done. You can also mark tasks as partially done, or make comments directly.

You might be interested to know that who launched the Laucke article is a native French Canadian, albeit a polyglot, who chooses to write in American English on the English Wikipedia.

Please continue with your constructive editing; I need all the help I can get Write back. Cheers! 20:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=713516054 your edit] to Vladimir Putin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * amp;nbsp;— Юйжхх, Ярпсйрспю, Мнбнярх, Тхмюмяш|publisher=Quote.ru|accessdate=2 March 2010}} In 2012, Putin reported an income of 3.6 million rubles ($113,000).

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David Jolly
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Jolly. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hazal Kaya
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hazal Kaya. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

BLP question
I am fielding a question at OTRS from the subject of an article: Charles Cohen.

As you might guess, he is troubled by the last sentence in the lead. On the one hand, the sentence is supported by what I believe to be a reliable source. On the other hand, he has been charged not convicted. We do not simply remove negative information simply because the subject requests it. However, information such as this but not to be included simply because it might be factually true. I'm sure you have dealt with dozens of similar example so looking for your insight and advice.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep - issues are clear. First of all, the apparent lead appears to be almost the  entire article.  Second the person is, AFAICT, not "primarily known" for the alleged crime. Third, we are relying for a single source for the large amount of detail used.  Fourth, the only text after this ("Methods")  seems to be from a single source.  Fifth, the charges appear to be the usual ones found in "police sting operations" which are occasionally found to be overzealous.  In short - IMHO, a fine mess.  Might you agree on this?  Collect (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

After some thought, I cut the BLP down a hair, and removed what was, in fact, an inaccurate wording of the charges which was not called for under WP:BLP while retaining the actual nature of the event. If the charges get dismissed, I would certainly suggest that the incident be removed. I consider police sting operations to begin with the premise that "anyone found is guilty", and juries frequently demur (I had a cousin once caught in one - and his lawyer got the charges dismissed, so I tend to be cautious about having Wikipedia make statements of "fact" which implicitly include a conclusion of guilt.) Collect (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Other concerns see techdirt article
 * Sex stings have become especially rich sources for seizures, since almost every man arrested is accused of traveling to seduce, solicit, or entice a child to commit a sexual act…even though no real children are ever involved in the stings. However, the accusations are felonies, meaning law enforcement can seize suspect's vehicles, making it extremely difficult for them to ever get them back without paying thousands of dollars – or more - in cash to the arresting agency.
 * For example, in one January 2014 sting where the Clearwater Police Department (CPD) and Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (PCSO) arrested 35 men in a single weekend, CPD seized 19 cars as their own under Florida's Contraband Forfeiture Act.

In short - caution in such cases where the person has no specific notability as a "predator" is warranted, in my considered opinion. Collect (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your in-depth review of this issue. Picking up on your second point, a question whether the sentence belongs in the lead. I wonder whether it belongs at all but I’m concerned I might have a biased view. I haven’t yet come up with a good section heading — none of the existing sections make sense, but I’m leaning toward coming up with an appropriate section heading and moving it down. That will still leave it in the article but with less prominence. I agree with your third and fourth points, but not sure where to go with that observation. Regarding the fifth point, this is something outside my expertise but you point sounds plausible.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I did make a move, but I also removed the phrase "sexual predator". While that might be a reasonable inference from the article, the term was never used. I felt such a strong term required stronger sourcing than exists.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And I agree with your position here. Thank you. Collect (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Laura Branigan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laura Branigan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erwin Mortier
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erwin Mortier. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erfurt massacre
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erfurt massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Manuel Fal Conde
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Manuel Fal Conde. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Anonymous allegations
Tightening the Screws on Anonymous Sources


 * After two major front-page errors in a six-month period, Times editors are cracking down on the use of anonymous sources.
 * (First one was about using "criminal" with regard to the HRC email inquiry, the second about a claim that a terrorist has posted on social media before the crime)
 * The policy also requires any other use of anonymous sources to be approved by a desk head – for example, the ranking culture, metro or international editor – or that person’s immediate deputy. It also “underscores what has been our policy”: that an editor must know the identity of an unnamed source. 

The New York Times is backing down from using "anonymous sources" to make contentious claims. Finally. Collect (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

heads up!
Note CANVASS and Stalking problems  User_talk:Writegeist "Don't forget to record a Support or Oppose to the move at the relevant talk page. Yes, I have been gone for years, made the mistake of socking to try to avoid wikistalking editors (inter alia). Now I know it's better just to face them head on. Live and learn. Ratel (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)"   Collect (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)  Also User_talk:Engleham where   two editors seem to act in direct collusion. Collect (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

From Talk:Gary Cooper RfC. Collect (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Your second law, "The person who is most insistent on specific sources is least likely to have found the best sources.", is left standing on its own, without any supporting text in the article body. Would you like to add a section to elaborate on your rationale for that? wbm1058 (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No real need - I think the pudding has been proved :) Collect (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think making that essay about laws is a bit problematic. It seems to me there's a more specific point being made with 'insisting on specific sources' that relates more to "reliable" sources and neutral point-of-view that is getting too far afield from the core concept of "repetition". That "proof technique" can be used to assert flawed arguments in many aspects of editing policy, just one of which is choice of sources. I'd like to remove that "law", and as there are multiple "laws' attributed to you, just show the one law pertinent to this essay, and call it "Collect's law of repetition". I think it should be OK to limit your name to just the quote box, and use the more general terms "Repetition in Argumentation", "proof by repetition", "Bellman's proof" and "perseveration" for the essay title and throughout the body of the essay outside of the quote box. Is that OK? wbm1058 (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Full Service (book)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Full Service (book). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

List of ministers of the Universal Life Church
Could you please go back and fix the errors you reintroduced with this edit. The list is sorted alphabetically so now Jerry Reinsdorf is out of order. The W section header was replaced to some Facebook page for a non-notable. The person that Facebook is referencing is linked to Alan Winters but that is a redirect to L. Alan Winters. The Alan Winters in the reference is not notable and has no article. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry?
Engleham was blocked once for sockpuppetry for just a few week. Are Grahamhigh and Portland29 possibly his sockpuppets? --George Ho (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest you file an SPI - this is pretty blatantly not "genuine editors" for sure. Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I opened the SPI page; the CheckUser could not confirm the users as sockpuppets. --George Ho (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You whine about stalking problems up page, yet here you are doing it YET AGAIN to me, desperate for something to harass me further with. Pathetic. And in vain. And worse, urging on Ho like he is your damaged dog. You like to paint yourself as the great champion of biographical truth. If that were actually true, instead of harassing me over trivial shit articles, you'd be directing your energies to correcting some of the shamingly distorted Wikipedia articles for corrupt figures, the improvement of which could make a genuine real world difference. Engleham (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? Collect (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James F. Amos
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James F. Amos. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2016 (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) 04:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cary Grant
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cary Grant. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chris Kyle
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chris Kyle. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James Shortt
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James Shortt. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)