User talk:Collect/archive1

Prescott Bush
Hi. I'm pleased that you finally chose to edit this page using non-conversational, non-inflammatory language. I don't personally know the truth of the skull story, and it's possible we may never know -- this is why we used the word "alleged". There are many "scurrilous" charges about public figures out there and sometimes, Wikipedia has to report the charges without benefit of knowing the truth or having a court judgement. This is when we point to credible sources outside Wikipedia. Finally, please be aware of Talk page etiquette. It is perfectly valid on Wikipedia to organize Talk pages so that conversations are together. I have not deleted anything you have put on the page, I have simply moved it to the conversation marked "Geronimo skull". See Talk page guidelines for the advice given to all Wikipedians. Making personal attacks on other editors is also a sure way to diminish your credibility, so don't do it, in your own self-interest. --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Anchorage, Wasilla, and the Second Bridge to Nowhere"
I see you added "although Wasilla is not near the bridge" to "to spur development and provide an alternate route between cities such as Anchorage and Wasilla"

"Near" is kind of a weasel word, but I get your point. How would you feel about changing the sentence to:

"to spur development and provide an alternate route between cities such as Anchorage (5 miles from the bridge) and Wasilla (40 miles away)" That way we don't have to argue about near or far.

I consider 40 miles to be "not near."Collect (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you that you've come to a point where you can no longer view some of these issues with an open mind. I really think you're taking the dynamics here a bit personally. Aprock (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? 40 miles is "near" to you when it would add time, distance and costs to a commuter using the bridge as a link between Anchorage and Wasilla? Did you read the tollroad cite I gave? Thanks! Collect (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In making your edits you removed a sentence that has nowhere been disputed on the talk page at any time.
In 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform, attacking "spinmeisters" for insulting local residents by calling them "nowhere" and urging speedy work on Alaska's infrastructure projects "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

I assume it was accident. Care to stick it back in?GreekParadise (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As you ought be aware, the changes made by vandals included material in that section. Including the "spinmeisters" stuff, which had been removed quite awhile ago now. Did you miss that one? We in consensus decided to keep the section short. Adding images and editorial material back in does not make the section short. Is this a difficult concept? Collect (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)  (PLEASE sign on this page!)

Collect, at NO time was the spinmeister quote EVER removed. It has been there consistently for two weeks. Please show me a single editor that removed it prior to you at any time. I'd genuinely like to see it. I'll revert. If you have a problem with saying that Palin once supported the bridge, let's have a source off. I'll give you 1,000 sources. You show me one. GreekParadise (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I know she supported getting the money, which was the primary reason for having am appropriation. Whether "spinmeister" is actually of any importance, I would demur. Collect (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's HER quote. Please read the source and then tell me if you think it should be removed pre-emptorily without any discussion whatsoever.GreekParadise (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

WP practice is opposed, as far as I can tell, to using single word quotes from articles. I would think something more than single words would be more acceptable to me at least. Collect (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Eponym
Could it be ...epithet--Buster7 (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC) I don't think that is quite it either ... nor is nickname right. I am sure we will find it, though! Collect (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Demonym? (I know, that's a latin/greek combo, but it sounds a lot better than "populonym") Homunq (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, in this context, epithet is pretty darn good. Homunq (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Demonym sounds rather demonic ... I am looking for a word which more conevys "newspeak" as a renaming form ... Collect (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You're Welcome
No problem. I'm happy to put in my two cents. I've been silently reading these discussions for weeks now, more fascinated than anything by the sudden interest in my state, (not just the usual questions about ice bears and igloos :) ), but after seeing that same topic brought up time and time again, I felt it was time to step in with a fact or two. I can't always be near a computer, but if I feel I can be helpful to a discussion I will. If you have any specific questions about Alaska, feel free to ask. Thank you for standing up for the facts. Zaereth (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. (Not sure if I should respond on your talk page or mine ... ) Yes, the push on each side to insert every little rumor just amazes me, but somehow the truth becomes apparent doesn't it, thanks to people such as yourself. I'm more than happy to point a finger toward the right direction if I can. It's easy to overlook simple details if you've never been here. For instance, many people I know in Wasilla are against the Knik Arm Bridge, (Don Young's Way? What's that? Is that something like the Bush Doctrine? :-) ), because tens of thousands of tourists flocking to Denali National Park every year would be able to bypass Wasilla altogether. But, of course, that's not well documented and counts as original research.Zaereth (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps there should be a special "original research" site -- it would give pause to those who regurgitate every internet rumor mill. And I have decided "Don Young's way" will be as well known as "Yankee Division Highway" (the Connecticut Turnpike). Collect (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just In case you missed it
Retreived from Sarah Palin talk:
 * Collect..just yesterday you said my claim of paid operatives at work here was, let me think, o yea....reprehensible and that I was not editing in good faith. My claim was, as it turns out, verified by this 44. My POV is that Kelly and ferrylodge were editing the Sarah Palin article in mid-July---5 weeks before she was a twinkle in the eye of Americans. Ok....maybe they are not paid. But someone would have to have blinders on to not realize that this article needs to be controlled by the Republicans. And, the Democrats need to do their best to counter. It only makes sense in this CyberAge. Perhaps you don't agree. But you needn't condemn me and call me heinous. War is reprehensible and heinous. I edit in good faith!!--Buster7 (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC) --Buster7 (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Show me where I said anything opposed to WP:AGF. I did state that it was improper of you IN TALK to claim that editors were paid by the Republican Party. That statement stands. Please do not misstate my clear statement, which did not ascribe anything about you other than what WP:AGF requires! Collect (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Liebman sock
Liebman wrote:

"In view of your plans to possibly retire, a Cubs-White Sox World Series (or any Series involving the Cubs) would be agood way to go out --Davey Collect (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)"

You wrote:

"Note that someone is apparently seeking to either stalk me, or just annoy me. The above "user" is someone's sockpuppet, and ought to be slapped down. Thanks! Dave Collect (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)"

Unless you've got other examples, I don't think anyone's trying to annoy you, and they've already been slapped down, but when someone edits in the New York Public Library system, it's hard to totally choke them off. This latest nonsense is either User:Ron liebman, a banned user who keeps turning up using that schtick, or it's (ironically) someone imitating Liebman. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I would, moreover, note that some of the editors involved in Sarah Palin have exchanged messages calling me "Dave Collect" in a disparaging manner which is what aroused my suspicions. Collect (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless someone is consciously imitating Liebman (which would certainly be a waste of one's precious time), then I think it's just a coincidence. But your heightened sensitivity to it is understandable. It could be worse. At least your first name isn't "1-800-" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Muthee Palin
I added a comment for you, and moved thread to my own talkpage, so as not to junk up this one. And I added a section on "Collecting". 14:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Stalking"?
I check out PB's BLP and its talk pages to see if Bush 43's family history is being sanitized in preparation for his departure, I reply to another editor there--and I'm "stalking" you? (Hm. When you jump to the conclusion that it's you who are the subject of a passing editor's scrutiny, it implies an inflated sense of self-importance and/or a guilty conscience.) You will recall that my note at Talk:Prescott Bush was in reply to 84.30.88.83's "Wikipedia becomes more laughable by the minute." 84.30.88.83 could be forgiven for thinking you have just corroborated the observation. For future accusations please use my talk page. And for entertainment's sake, please maintain the same high standard of absurdity. :~) Regards, Writegeist (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Prescott Bush's page is being heavily vandalized, and your post unfortunately came in at the precise same period of time. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Editor X vandalizes an article on the same day that Editor Y (who has posted nothing to the article) posts once to its talk page, and you cite that as the reason for suspicion that Editor Y is stalking you. Ergo every other editor who posts to the talk page that day is stalking you. Seriously, oh Guardian of All Things Bushy and Palinesque, you need to get those demons to a doctor pronto! Man, you could miss the Rapture! And burn for all eternity in lakes of fire! S. Palin's witch doctor might help you out? — Writegeist (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Um -- my sole and only ain has been NPOV. I fear that your POV is heavily evident in your rant above. Thank you most kindly. And try reading AGF someday.  Collect (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Bollocks. Who do you think you're kidding? Your absurd accusation of "stalking" has no possible foundation in NPOV. First you claim a mix-up over vandalism and when that doesn't fool anyone you affect concern for NPOV. (And to think I credited you with intellectual rigor!) Now that that hasn't worked, what's the next lame excuse for your unfounded accusation?  — Writegeist (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
Edit summaries like this one are entirely inappropriate. Please curb your tone when dealing with other editors and please stop edit warring.  Grsz  X  01:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at the edit summaries from the past in Talk: Sarah Palin. And kindly note that my edits are uniformly made with an attempt to find common ground, not to take over a page. My sole effort has been to make this article conform tothe highest possible standards. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed your references Palin support of the bridge to two Democrats because it was wrong. Two Democrats were interviewed for the article, but they make no reference to the governor.  Grsz  X  01:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The only ones cited in the article were the two Democrats.c EVERY other Democratic official site only claims June 2008. I suggest that this is moot as the Palin article is now under GP's control, as he desired when he got blocked for edit warring. I won;t play that game. Good luck when he adds the other silly stuff which he got blocked on in the past. The Palin article is now going to be the laughing-stock of WP. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You aren't getting what I'm saying. The two interviewed don't mention Palin. They say other things, but the artictle in it's own prose sources that she still supports "with reservations."  Grsz  X  02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * THE ONLY TWO MENTIONED ARE DEMOCRATS, PALIN IS NOT QUOTED. Is this abundantly clear? The article does not claim any source from Palin. At all. Clear now? Collect (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And kindly use your own talk page if you wish to continue stating what is unsupportable by the cites GreekParadise has pushed for quite awhile. Unless, of course, you think that Trig is Palin;s grandson and other stuff like that? Collect (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll give an edit a try, let me know what you think.  Grsz  X  02:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Partisan edits
It's becoming increasingly clear that your only intent here is to promote candidates for public office that you have endorsed. This is an egregious violation of WP:NPOV and, to a lesser extent, WP:SPA. If you continue I will seek sanctions at ANI. In the meantime, any controversial edits you make to any articles for any candidate or public figure should be cleared on the talk page first. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the first time I have run across you. Please be assured that I have endorsed no candidates, and would not do so. I try to seek NPOV on WP, as I trust you do also. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Cumulus Clouds, if you cite examples, such as links to history page comparisons, it may help Collect self evaluate his edits. I was accused of partisanship by both sides without specificity, leaving me baffled, but when specificity was provided, I agreed I was in error in some cases, and reached consensus that I was not in error in others.  Without link specificity, accusations of partisanship amount to nothing more than name calling.  Assume good faith in attempts at objectivity and most disputes can be resolved. Tautologist (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, and to respond, every single one of Collect's edits in the past 3 months has been to demonize a Democratic candidate for office and to endorse or promote a Republican candidate (or religious figure). His edits to Dino Rossi are a good example, the discussion on the talk page of that article is another good one, his recent edits to Prescott Bush are another good example and generally any edit he's made in recent memory is pretty overtly biased towards the conservative wing of the political spectrum. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, it would appear that you and Collect share the same partisan political agenda, so I'm not sure what good my response will do in this situation. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not made a siongle edit regarding any Democratic candidate. Mot one. Zero. Nor have I made any partisan comments about any such candidate. Not one. Nor have I endorsed any religious figure. Not one. The Prescott Bush edits were discussed long ago. And they were not partisan in any way, shape, manner or form. Collect (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what Collect's personal political or theological positions are. I personally think any and all information that is factual and sourced, and that may reasonably be potentially of interest to a researcher using an encyclopedia, should be collected in that encyclopedia, whether or not it might be used by partisans.  But how the collected information is used by the researcher (who may or may not have a partisan motive in using the encyclopedia for information) is not the business of an ecyclopedia.  I was recently ganged up and accused of being a "pro Obama partisan" when I tried to included information on a self described and literal with hunter in Sarah Palin's article, after she publicly singled him out for praise and helping her become governor through a prayer for God to provide her with partisan funds and workers, and to protect her from witchcraft.  I was also recently ganged up on as a "pro Palin" partisan" for arguing that members of her church should be allowed to add sourced information on their church's theology, being experts on this, even though this is marginal under Wikipedia's policies on contributing to an article about one's own organization.  As Obama named a book based on his former pastor, I argued that a summary of commonly known controversial assertions by the pastor this should be in an Obama article, even if Obama was not present, if they drove political history, with further information as to whether Obama denounced these assertions if he did so.  Collect recently deleted information I added on the witch hunter on grounds that I improperly sourced it, then kept information when I properly sourced it.  So what is Collect's POV?  It appears to be to collect sourced information in an article, but delete it when it is not sourced.  My point is that alleging a partisan motive (which may or may not be there) is irrelevant to a debate on what information to include.  Any POV by editors should be for inclusion of sourced information, whether or not a user of an ecyclopedia might use the information in a partisan manner.  Tautologist (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for noting how much I like facts rather than surmise! I also tend to prefer simple sentence construction, and normal English usage. If something is factual and sourced, then I always favor keeping it in (if relevant, of course). Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Being eavesdropped on, being plaigiarized, having personal errors pointed out, and accusations of partisanship by both sides, are the highest forms of flattery. Collect facts... let others spin as they like. Tautologist (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

CC-"every single one of Collect's edits in the past 3 months has been to demonize a Democratic candidate for office and to endorse or promote a Republican candidate". Oh really? How about this diff: ? You need verifiable facts, not mere accusations. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have now edited on at least 32 subjects. 4 are political. 28 are not -- including such biggies as Howdy Doody, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sark and James Cagney ... quod erat demonstrandum. Collect (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

He's mostly right. But Huey Long was in fact at one point a Democratic candidate :o) [] [] Oh, and should Cumulus be correct about warning being part of the 3RR process, be warned. You clocked up 11 reversions on the same day you supported User:RafaelRGarcia's 24hr block for the 5 reversions you reported on the Sarah Palin Discussion page, and six the day before that. RRG has made more actual contributions of valuable material in the month he has been at Wiki than Collect -ever- will. And talk about biting the noobs, eh? 24 hr ban? Anarchangel (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First -- thank you for your outre comment. Huey Long is not a current political figure in any sense of the word. He is deader than a Monty Python parrot.  And my edits there were in no way political, which you should know. End that straw issue. Garcia has edited on precisely three pages - Clarence Thomas, Anita Hill and Sarah Palin. Period. As for somehow blaming me for his ban, don't go there. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning on Dino Rossi and Billy James Hargis
This is your 3RR warning for both of these articles. You have already made 4 reverts on Billy James Hargis, and if you make another on either one you will be blocked from editing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You are the one who reverted, CC. Warn yourself. Collect (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Welch quote
No problem. Using the right search term on Google can help. The Buckley article popped up as the second item. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry -- I got caught up in a self-referencing loop for the quote which I found dismaying. Collect (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Final warning on vandalism to Dino Rossi
If you remove any other sources or sourced statements from this article you will face administrative sanctions. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You actually removed agreed upon changes to Dino Rossi. Thanks for threatening me. Collect (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning on Charles Keating
This is your 3RR warning for Charles Keating. If you make another reversion you will be blocked from editing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You did 9 full reversions in 4 days on a single article - Dino Rossi. Your threats and warnings are asinine at this point. You have violated every single precept of WP. I guess all political articles are your sandbox as you now have made more reverts than anyone else I have found. 90 Reverts in a single month.  Why not accept me for who I am -- a neutral editor who dislikes unsourced material and material not directly relevant to an article. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you don't represent any of those things. You have an agenda on this encyclopedia and your blatant promotion of conservative candidates for public office (and other public officials) will not be tolerated. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have promoted absolutely no candidates for office. Every single edit I make is with the sole purpose of improving the quality of WP articles, on all subjects. You are, in fact, the only person to make the charges you have made. Kindly assume good faith, and we will be better off. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is your second warning in two days for 3RR violations to this article. If you make another reversion you will be blocked from editing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Um -- I edited some actual grammatical errors and punctuation errors. And a claim made in the article which was NOT in the cite furnished. I did not revert, as you proudly do. Your claim that 3RR applies is erroneeous and, frankly, a bullying tactic at this point. As for your assertion that I am biassed in some way, I would ask you actually use AGF. Thanks! Collect (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

2nd 3rr warning on dino rossi
this is your required notice for 3rr on dino rossi. persistant edit warring will result in your block. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your repeated false warnings will be reported. Wikilawyering on your part has been noted by seversal administrators. Collect (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Collect, "I am warning you for the last [last, last, last,... ] time!"... again. Tautologist (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 3rr warnings are required as part of the 3rr process. anytime you violate the protocol you will be notified. continuing to engage in partisan edits to this encyclopedia will eventually get you blocked and i would recommend you stop. the election is about two weeks away and you seem to generally disappear afterwards, so i don't know that this will be a problem for very much longer. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Pointing out that polls are a year old is partisan? You gotta be kidding! As for saying I "generally tend to disappear afterwards" -- what the heck are you talking about? My edits cover a wide range of topics, and your statements are wierd! Collect (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Cumulous clouds tend to disappear after a storm, collect acCumulates. Tautologist (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I think we both know more about CC than we desire. Collect (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Inre this diff:
Inre: this diff, I have chosen to not reply to you so as to not get in the middle of any disagreements between you and he. I will be archiving that section/comment shortly and I ask that this discussion not be carried out on my talk page. I have made the same request of him.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Notification
Since no one has pointed it out to you (and, as a courtesy, they ought to have):

You were recently reported for a three-revert-rule violation. The report was declined. See this permalink for a record: CIreland (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)