User talk:Collect/archive10

Policy Report
A summary of the community's comments on our WP:Edit warring policy will be featured in the Policy Report in next Monday's Signpost, and you're invited to participate. Monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009, and it may help to look at previous policy surveys at WT:SOCK, WT:CIVILITY or WT:U. There's a little more information at WT:Edit warring. I'm not watchlisting here, so if you have questions, feel free to ask there or at my talk page. Thanks for your time. (P.S. Your edit to WT:3RR, which was merged into this page, was months ago, but we haven't had much participation in the survey so far this week.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Pompeia
It does sometimes feel like one is casting pearls before swine. We have such a great treasure-house of phrases and allusions in English, I do regret that so few people seem to know or care about them. DuncanHill (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Rather than greeting-spam everyone (humbug!)

May each and everyone reading this have a Joyous and Merry Christmas!

May faith guide you and comfort you throughout the year, and may this next year be one of prosperity, health and happiness for all!

Collect (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)



AFriedman  (talk)  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thanks for being such an awesome User! Here is a little holiday "present" for you. Also, in the spirit of the season, would you be interested in joining WikiProject Human rights? -- AFriedman  (talk)  19:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed! Collect (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The lede of Judaism
Hi, I've finally gotten around to editing the lede. I'm trying to incorporate the ideas you proposed some time ago, about Jewish denominations. Would you like to come around and look at it? -- AFriedman  (talk)  04:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably not til next year . Collect (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Confused about your recent RFA decision
I was surprised to see you support in this recent RFA, since you seem like such a strong supporter of editors contributions.

Please consider the oppose views. Thanks. Ikip 01:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I supported Ironholds in his RfA -- he valued comments I made in an MfD about reasonable procedures, and has, to my knowledge, abided by them. I think that making reasoned comments works better than viewing anyone as a foe.   In some cases I think folks you once regarded as allies have, in fact, been far from allies in maintaining reasoned and consistent approaches to valid deletion and keep discussions.   So I would take it as a favor if you considered my support of Ironholds, and consider supporting his RfA. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification of WP:NOR/N item for discussion of Mass killings under Communist regimes
You may be particularly interested in WP:NOR/N to discuss article SYNTH issues with uninvolved editor experts. There's space for a summary argument to claim that the article isn't SYNTH which you might like to provide, and to ensure we get uninvolved editor contributions I separated involved and uninvolved editor comment sections. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

David Copperfield discussion redact
I'll ask Ratel to redact his comments, but will you do the same...and first? Or, if you both agree, let me ask an uninvolved admin to remove anything unrelated to the discussion. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 21:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Struckout last comment on DC page. Someday I would love to see Ratel redact his charges about my sanity  which he has made a few dozen times now. Collect (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I getting this confused with refactoring? And I think striking through some comments isn't going to remove the distraction. You both have valid points that aren't based on your ongoing disagreements, but other editors may not see that and discount or ignore both arguments. Flowanda | Talk 22:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion coming -- but many editors seem to think that deletion is wrong on AT pages. In any event, if I delete, I would like to see all of Ratel's attacks deleted as well. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also note recalcitrance per . I think your good offices may need to be a tad more forceful there. Collect (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, what's it going to take to stop you stalking me? I have ample evidence of it, and you know you're doing it. Why not stop this harassment campaign and stay off the handful of pages I habitually edit? These clashes occur in identical fashion every few months. What are you achieving by it? ► RATEL ◄ 23:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I not only am not stalking you, I have never stalked you, and I am rather tired of your making the same charge on every page you can. I have edited well over fifteen hundred different articles. Our intersection is eight articles. Or about .5% overlap. My intersection with Wikidemon is twelve articles. About .8% overlap. Might that convince you of anything? Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Collect, please, I have never knowingly started editing a page on which you are an habitual and established regular editor (AFAIK). But you have done that to me on many pages, always directly editing sections in which I am involved in a dispute, and always to take the opposing side, no matter what the merits. Now I only edit about 40 pages. How about we agree not to edit pages on which the other editor is active? Can you do that? Show goodwill here and your protestations of innocence will carry more weight. ► RATEL ◄ 14:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Has it occurred to you that coincidence is possible when the overlap is 8 articles out of SIXTEEN HUNDRED articles I have edited? Your edit history shows about EIGHT HUNDRED articles.  The percentage overlap is trivial.   My overlap with THF is 25, or more than three times the overlap with you.   I have, in fact, a smaller overlap with you than with most other active editors.  Collect (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What was I thinking, asking you for a good faith undertaking? I may as well get used to the fact that you will poke your obnoxious nose into every argument I get into on WP, forever. ► RATEL ◄  04:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:CIVIL please.  A one half of one percent overlap is pretty trivial, but you seem intent on making comments about me which are inapt and uncivil in many places, whereas I make no attempt at all to find you.  Perhaps that should indicate the truth of the matter, indeed.  Meanwhile, I ask that you make no further posts to this usertalk page whatever. Collect (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA
I've never closed an AfD&mdash;I was an admin for 2.5 years and never closed a single one. I'm simply not interested in doing it. In any case, I'm not going to act contrary to policy under any circumstances. Everyking (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My position must, perforce, be based on what you wrote about XfDs -- and since we are determining who can do something, the requirement for any prudent person is to examine how potential acts might be affected. Clearly we have no personal conflicts at all. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello again
RE: Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Congratulations your proposal against BLP changes is the most popular. You may want to add:
 * Addendum: Wikipedia:Petition against Ignore all rules abuse

As I just did too my section. Ikip 00:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
I hope that we can someday become friends. As you have said many times before, it seems like we have more in common than not. When I scrambled my password I note that your comment that if I were to leave, to paraphrase: I would come back and "target you". I am sorry you feel that way, it simply is not the case. I later found a loop hole by emailing myself a new password, so I am back.

What happened last year, happened last year. Although you may feel I have a lot of animosity toward you, I don't. In fact I see our disagreement on Business Plot as a positive experience which led to several epiphanies. One was to see articles three dimensionally. Although many of the edits I added are gone from the main page, they still exist, and always will exist in the page history and the talk page. I will never have a 3rr violation on an article again, and I have you and Ted to thank for this.

Your RFC was unfortunate. The RFC was minor to me, in that I have had so many more traumatic experiences here. Looking back on my four years here, your RFC isn't even in the top 50. So I would never come back and "target you". But I do understand as the subject of the RFC, it was major for you.

I just want to clear the air a bit, so we can hopefully move forward on saving articles together. I respect so much that you do.

"Et tu?" - please clarify what you mean
Collect, your comment "Et tu?" at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes seems to indicate that I am myself guilty of the same error that I am accusing Termer of. Since this is in effect an accusation of disruptive editing a personal accusation, I would like you to clarify how I am obstructing constructive discussion - or if that was not what you meant, please clarify what you did mean. Please answer me there. Thanks. --Anderssl (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

edit count list of editors on a page?
I'm interested in doing more research on your recentl comment on the BLP RFC - the one where you bracket editors to the rfc by list of edits. How did you pull down that list? Hipocrite (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at every name I had never run across, and did the edit count . It takes a while, to be sure. When I found a single-edit account, I suspected it was not a real newbie.   Indeed, it is very rare for new users to opine at this sort of page when they have fewer than a thousand edits, but that would make the numbers too high!  (And if you delete minor edits, which may sometimes be used to boost edit counts, I suspect that the number of "alternate personas" may be well over 40 on the one page!)  If we also look at suddenly returning editors, who number over a dozen, I fear the CANVASS may extend to well over fifty of the participants.  Collect (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Shit, I was suspecting that was how you did it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a list of interesting accounts? I am failing at this dramatically, and I would like to get to the bottom of the problem. Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To prevent any possible claim of NPA, I would prefer not. Look, however, at names not usually found at any BLP discussions in the past. Collect (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that we are on diametricaly opposite sides of this issue I don't see any possible personal attack in listing a users who you believe do not typically edit BLP discussions - one might argue not being on the list is a personal attack, but I'll try to slog through it again. I assume the suspects to which you refer are in the support area of the most popular option. Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Amazingly enough, I would not leap to that conclusion. I suspect that appreciable CANVASS occurred and/or interesting newbies appeared.  BTW, I doubt we are diametrically opposed -- I am a firm believer in enforcing rigorously procedures to protect BLPs from having any controversial or contentious material.   I am also a believer that it is the community here which establishes the procedures.  Collect (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Figgered it out - almost all of the questionable editors appear to be in one or more wikiprojects that was ikiped. Hipocrite (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you have been making some friends too
Thanks for the heads up.

It is called Diving (football) or WP:Mock,
 * "When people are involved in disputes there is a tendency to take offense, sometimes called "mock outrage", at statements that are either not intended as slights, or that transgress the norms of discussion only in a technical sense but are not in fact hurtful to the target of the comment."

Ikip 23:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I told you long ago that temporary allies do not make for long-term friends. Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When I said "friends" I was being facetious, I think you realized that. :)
 * But you point struck home regardless.
 * My comments to Durova I think really sum it all up.
 * If you need assistance with an article, or you need someone to help mediate a discussion, let me know.
 * I was sincere with my comments to Gwen, and would be happy to put a nice word in for you again. Okip BLP Contest 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am always available as a genuine friend, but I think you knew that. I think you understand that you used to rush to judgement far too quickly about folks . Collect (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Ayush Goyal
Hi, Collect. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Blades (band), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Ayush Goyal. Cunard (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavan McDonell
refs do not appear to show up properly argh - It wasn't obvious, but I eventually found the cause. Comments are. You had . So, ALL of the rest of the refs were included in the hidden comment. ("Interesting"!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Collect (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sir King
Is actually correct, he was knighted and his title is Sir :) do you want to put it back in? I`m not really fussed but we should we the guys title i suppose :) --mark nutley (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually the "Sir" would be used with his first name - thus "Sir David Frost" is "Sir David" and not "Sir Frost". The title is given in the first use which has his first name in it.  MOS definitely frowns on "Sir King" . Really. Collect (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn, your right, i had forgotten that. In my defence i have been very ill recently and all my royal friends have run orf :) --mark nutley (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Checking genealogies -- I have more English royal blood that does Queen Elizabeth . And you must admit "Sir King" looks really funny! IIRC, you can not name a child with a title  as his first name in the UK. Collect (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A request
Please see User talk:Collect/personas. --Buster7 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is identified in any way on that page. Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it is me. Its a simple request. Be a gentleman and honor it.--Buster7 (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No one else can. I have edited it down further to assuage you. Collect (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And you could also remove stuff about me from your Userspace as well -- including your user talk page . Collect (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not enough. Please find some other example. Having made a gentlemanly request, I would rather not involve others. Is it that important to you that you can not see your way clear to edit me completely out of the picture you are painting? Again...it is a simple personal request. (You first)--Buster7 (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll emend more. But seriously - there is no connection made to you on the page. Meanwhile, have you removed the stuff related to me from your userspace? Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am in the process.--Buster7 (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Adjectives and NPOV
I know you're interested in the use of political adjectives on Wikipedia. Can you take a look at Special:Contributions/Loonymonkey? He says he is, in good faith, removing all references to organizations being "liberal" or "progressive", which is possible, but he seems to be doing so indiscriminately, and not doing anything of the sort to references to conservative organizations, which seems like POV-pushing to me. Case in point is his edits to ProgressNow, where the editor removed all references to "liberal" organizations, but kept the phrase "conservative Independence Institute" in the article. I don't have time to flyspeck his edits, but he's disregarded my talk-page comments asking him to wait until there's consensus for his point of view (being discussed at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_22 and WP:MULTI-discussed at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_1, and every edit of his I've double-checked so far has been inaccurate. But your mileage may vary; I'm withdrawing from the dispute because I don't have time for Wikidrama.  THF (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Phoenixof9
Sry couldn't help but notice this little gem. I would srsly consider taking him to AN/I for hounding. Your RFC was months ago, the terms placed on you long since expired. The fact that he's dragging it all up now only proves he simply has an ax to grind. Soxwon (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One of his friends kept sending me emails. I told Gwen about all this. See also WP:False consensus for my opinion. Collect (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A/E
Hi. I noticed your comment here and wondered if you could show me a link to one (or more) of the "multiple ArbCom findings in the past" in which you state that it was ruled that it is "quite improper to assert "tag team"" when filing an A/E request? I don't mind refactoring my report if necessary but as you will understand I would like to see the evidence first. Thanks in advance for your trouble. --John (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and while you're at it, would you mind explaining what you meant by "...fails to demonstrate that THF engaged in any edit wat (sic)..."? The diffs showing that the editor added the tag four times over a short period would seem like pretty good evidence of edit-warring to me, or am I missing something? --John (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear John. There is no need to (sic) typos anywhere on WP, that I know of.  Collect (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. And the other stuff I was asking you? --John (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A simple intermediate act is not considered "tag team." See all WP:Tag teams. It is wrong to improperly assert tag team - c;early where you can prove it, it is proper.  I just happen to think it is highly unlikely that you can prove such.   To show such, by the way, it helps to show a pattern of some sort. Were you able to document any sort of pattern? Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * An addition of a tag then three reversions of it from one user, three reversions from another user, against what seems to be a solid consensus that has stood for several years and already been the subject of arbitration - what would you call it? Thanks for linking me to the essay, but it falls short of what I asked for, and of what you said. If you can show me those "multiple ArbCom findings in the past" you mentioned, or if an arbitrator or one of the people I mentioned asks me to, I will certainly refactor. For now I think I will leave it as it is. It may be slightly non-NPOV, but it also describes perfectly what happened, in my opinion. Thank you for sharing your opinion though. Let me know if you come up with any of the other evidence I asked you about. As far as a pattern goes, take a look here; what would you say? Best, --John (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Last year I made it a practice to read about two dozen cases completely - from Request through to results . Quite informative, to be sure. Collect (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather you than me, but à chacun son goût. I don't suppose you can remember any of the cases where you got the idea that calling tag teaming tag teaming was forbidden? Don't worry if you can't, in which case I'll take it that this was hyperbole on your part. I've struck the comment anyway; on further reflection it wasn't helpful to resolving the situation. --John (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually about three cases for sure where the use of "insufficient evidence" was decried. Making accusations of tt requires more than a single instance of two editors making the same revert.   ArbCom basically in the past did not look ypon it favorably.  I did a bit of research, mainly to find example where the committee made specific findings about the evils of vote-stacking and canvassing (see WP:False consensus for some of their findings) and ran across the tt material as well. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ian Plimer
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 17:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Lego and Halsam
If you are still interested in Lego, please look at my remark under Lego/discussion/Halsam. Salix2 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

RPA
There's nothing wrong with RPA. It is a policy I choose to follow when an uninvolved adversarial editor follows me from an unrelated page to post a personal attack out of spite. Your restoration of that spiteful attack reflects poorly on you. ► RATEL ◄ 15:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit did not appear to violate WP:NPA nor did I find any significant interactions between the two of you looking at article intersections.  Lighten up. Collect (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

re: 81.38.219.5
Okay, I'm just starting off, so trying to keep things slow :). How long in general would you suggest for an IP account's first block for personal attacks? - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where the person makes edits which specifically run afoul of WP standards, try 48 hours . Where it is likely ignorance, then 24 is good.  Calling someone a "pedophile" is quite beyond any reason.   The usual suspicion, by the way, is that the person is not a "newbie" at all.   You likely should watchlist the articles which the IP vandalized, as they tend to show up rapidly with another IP address (do a WHOIS to see if they might be from the same location) doing similar quality edits.  Block as needed.  While I am not an admin, I was in charge of over 200 sysops on CompuServe for a good many years <g>. Collect (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe 48 hours would have been a better choice, although there's little difference between that and 31 hours tbh. Anyway, I've replied on my talk page :). - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- you might want to look at the various actions concerning the use of the P-word, and the fact that some editors have been permanently blocked (site-banned) for various offenses relating thereto. Lots of ArbCom stuff on it as well (including a famous "wheel war" case relating to it).   It is also one of the few accusations which WMF has weighed in on.  I just wanted to let you know it falls into a "special case" part of the rules, and one which is not, for some reason, written out clearly for folks to know about.  You might wish to look ay Guy's comments on it (User talk:JzG  in various ANI discussions. Collect (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Arthur A. Goldberg
Do you still wish to delete this article? THF (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are satisfied that it meets WP notability and sourcing, I am not averse. Collect (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Twain's Georgism and Reliable Sources
American Studies scholar, Jim Zwick, who specializes in Mark Twain wrote the article "Mark Twain and the Single Tax Movement." The Georgist Journal No. 87 (Summer 1997): 5-10. Observing that Twain was "Prodigally Endowed With Sympathy for the Cause". http://www.bochynski.com/twainweb/jimzwick.html

I'd like to add Twain to the Categority of Georgists. But as a Wikipedia newbie, I don't know exactly how to do this, and don't want to annoy experienced Wikipedians like yourself by screwing it up again. What do I need to do to make this change OK? Sorry for being a nuisance!

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andronico (talk • contribs) 14:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The key problem is that Twain nowhere said he was a "Georgist" and sources which are from the "Georgist" movement are singularly poor choices to prove that he was one.  Being "sympathetic" to (say) Roman Catholicism does not make one a Roman Catholic, for example.  And the "Twark Main" claim is very weak indeed -- when writing on serious topics, Twain used his real name or Mark Twain - "funny names" were generally reserved for non-serious topics.  See the Ament controversy, for example. Collect (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Charles G. Koch
Hi there Collect. I actually have no experience with page protection, and since this doesn't look like a clear-cut case of heavy blatant vandalism, I'd suggest you use WP:RFPP. Sorry for the long time to reply. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight (2nd nomination)
You don't think this is axe-grinding? Saying that an AFD should be "fought," especially one like Articles for deletion/Fanny Grace where Weber disrupted to make a point with his usual "speedy keep, it clearly exists, nothing else matters" nonsense and got a few sheeple to follow him? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas, I tend to be quite lenient in userspace, especially since I have seen so many noms at MfD brought for perceived dislike of other editors, that I am willing to draw the line a tad further out than you are <g>. Collect (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Even on Kurt? Even Job would've long since said "forget it" on that guy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I survived worse <g> so Kurt is not a problem. Collect (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Biased Arabic Wikipedia Template
Hello! I am requesting a re-evaluation of the unfounded deletion of my personal space page about Arabic Wikipedia template. The request for re-evaluation can be found here. I would greatly appreciate your input in this matter. Thank you in advance. -- λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ <sup style = "color: #666666;">[talk] 00:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Kmweber's editing restriction
Since you commented in the sub-thread WP:ANI growing out of User:Kmweber's recent edits to an AfD page and his subsequent block and unblock, i wish to draw your attention to WP:ANI where I have proposed that his restriction be modified as discussed the the "specific question" sub thread. Your views would be welcome. DES (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Democrat vs Democratic
Hi. Please read Democrat Party (phrase). "The word "Democrat" is not at all controversial, except when it is used as an adjective (as in "Democrat Party" or "Democrat Senator" or "Democrat idea"). In that case some Democratic Party leaders and non-partisan commentators have objected to the use as adjective." We do not use the word "Democrat" as an adjective. It is a noun. Hipocrite (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As an additional note, your first edit ("ranking Democratic senator" -> "ranking Democrat") was fine, it was only the second ("Democratic Governor Gary Locke" -> "Democrat Governor Gary Locke") that was in error. Perhaps it was an oversight? Hipocrite (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * NYT is itself not fully consistent there.  There is always a problem in deciding whether an adjective is a noun, etc.  Hence removal of the useless "senator" (members of a senate committee generally are senators <g>)  Collect (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello!
Just a query, what does AFAICT mean? :) Thanks &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 18:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am showing my age <g>. It is old online shorthand for "as far as I can tell."  When we had 300 baud modems, we started with such abbreviations (now reincarnated for "texting.")   If you read the talk page archives on the nicknames, you will readily see why they reached a consensus not to have "every possible name the guy was called" in it.  I have now been online for nearly three decades. Collect (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, ok! :) I had read that, I don't disagree. Was just curious as I had never seen that abbreviation before. Thank! &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 18:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Koch Industries
Hi there Collect, I know you've been active on the Koch Industries article recently, so I wanted to run past you a proposed a new section to replace the hideous (and plagiarized) list of acquisitions; it can be found on a page in my user space. I've also left a detailed note on the Koch Industries Talk page. As I've said there, Koch is a client of my employer, so I want to be careful with my potential conflict of interest. Please take a look if you get the chance. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Collect. You seem to be occupied with other subjects right now, so I've taken this same request over to the Help Desk. Your input is still desired, if you wish to comment. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry 'bout that -- a number of things conspired against me this week <g>. Collect (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, not a problem. Thanks for the note, and congrats on the upgrade! Unfortunately my request at the Help Desk seems to have been bypassed in favor of simpler questions, so I have not made any further progress. What's more, WikiProject Companies has been silent for weeks, so I am having trouble finding consensus. Under other circumstances I would make the edit anyway, but as Koch is very much in the news, I want to be extra careful. If you would review my suggested revision and offer an opinion or edit, I'd be very grateful, but no hard feelings if you don't. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The COI rules prevent you making puff additions - but corrections of facts and figures are ok. Collect (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know that. It's just that Koch Industries is much talked about, especially of late, so I want to be certain that my proposal has consensus ahead of time. It seems you don't object, which I appreciate. If the Help Desk has no opinion, I'll probably go ahead and make the change directly. Thanks for your response. NMS Bill (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)
Hi, Collect. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

name inclusion
Hi, I was just wondering, do you support the inclusion od the name? It is unclear, you said only if the quote from her not wanting her name known, this would seem to read that you don't support the inclusion of the name, could you clarify for me please. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The source appears to be RS by WP rules AFAICT -- if she disputes it, then add her dispute as well.  No real reason not to do both, is there?  I really do not consider most names to be "contentious" by a long shot!  Collect (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So you think to add...Her name is Dorothy S Whatever, she is most well known under her pen name and she has said that doesn't want people to know her first name is Dorothy. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note
You are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at Talk:John J. Pershing about a matter on which you may have commented in the past. Thank you, – xeno talk  15:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

except
Except if you follow my diffs. Which include goading and victimisation of WMC by Lar. This is a case for going deeper and not having immediate reactions based on preconceptions. Polargeo (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I followed many edits on this - including those made on Lar's user page, all the CC dispute pages etc.  Collect (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Back and forth in endorsements at Requests for comment/Lar
To Collect, Hipocrite, and Marknutley: I thought back and forth in endorsements was discouraged. You may want to move your comments to the talk. I could be wrong though. Since I left this note at several pages you may want to discuss it at my talk, dunno. Your call. ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I sought (I thought) in any of my endorsements to note only where my endosement was not total -- few people actually read the talk page to ascertain limitations on agreeents - especially where the limit can be worded tersely <g>. I did move a copy of the colloquy as to what is meant by a qualified endorsement to the talk page. Collect (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Posting of my talkpage comments on the RfC talkpage
Please do not post my user talkpage comments on the RfC talkpage. If you were expecting to provoke me you haven't. It just appears to be rather desperate. Polargeo (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you most kindly. You need not post on my talk page. Collect (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible lossage?
This edit appears to have been inadvertantly removed. You may want to restore it, I think it's useful. If this notice is in error my apologies. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * An uninvolved editor came by and elided it all to the fact that WP has an article on the non-esistent term <g>. Collect (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Judaism talk archives.
OK. I did some digging and I have posted extensively on what I found. Your response and further input would be appreciated. I'm also wondering how I might be able to get wider community input on this. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:RFC which is a tad confusing <g>. Be sure to specify "religion" as a category, I would think. Collect (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I will try to figure that out, but I'd love to start by getting some input from those who are regulars first.  Thanks again.Griswaldo (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

User page protection
Done. Let me know when/if you want it lifted. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Decency
If you are going to impugn my behavior on a highly trafficed talk page like Lar's, at least have the decency to tell me what I've done wrong. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No impugning done. Unless, of course, you wish to claim such occurred on the RFC/U for Lar where the tool was discussed. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fully uninvolved
Hi Collect, Perhaps I am mistaken but it appears you just signed as "fully uninvolved" in the RFC on CC probation. You appear to have a degree of involvement etc and perhaps should move your comment?--BozMo talk 15:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope./ You will find exceedingly little involvement with any CC articles (I do have WP:BLP concerns on Ian Plimer, but no edits regarding CC at all that I can recall dealing with being pro- or anti- AGW etc.).  I am uninvolved editorially on the matter.  Collect (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)   BTW, it is odd to think that using "asserts" instead of "asserting" or the like as a word choice makes me "involved" <g>.  (the diff you give is a great example of what proves non-involvement!)  Perhaps a change of a comma is also a sign of "involvement"? Collect (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are fully involved in the debate. No question about that whatsoever. Polargeo (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit summary read "rm WTA, weasel words and POV adverbs etc.". It is hard to make an edit with that summary and claim no involvement. I suggest you reconsider for the sake of good form --BozMo talk 15:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The word choice was made neutral. I assert strenuously that the word choice does not show "involvement" with CC. Thanks!  BTW, did you read the prior wording?  Collect (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For context I have been called "involved" for adding a single possible reference to an article talk page. "Fully uninvolved" with CC probation is a strong statement which I think you should not claim. --BozMo talk 16:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And you find me "involved" for changing ""asserting" to "asserts" and "has described as" to "called" and "among Australian independent bookstores " to "In Australia" etc.? Astounding leap that one is! Collect (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps in a spirit of empathy, you'd be willing to go through the laundry list of articles you dumped on Lar's talkpage as evidence of my "involvement", and prune those where my contributions are negligble or uncontroversial, as yours are here? I've already done some of the work for you. MastCell Talk 23:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

1. appears substantive indeed. 2. CRU you only protected 3. is a relatively minor, but definite, edit. 4. At least you removed the category "AIDS denialism" from an article. 5. Many edits including  among others. 6. Many edits including   7. relatoively minor edit - but still substantive. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you made substantial contributions in 4 out of the 7 -- so figure that you substantially edited a dozen or more CC articles in common with WMC. I think you likely would be better off if I did not post this on Lar's page as a matter of fact. Would you actually like all this posted showing that you were active in a number of CC articles? Collect (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to post whatever you think will honestly and accurately represent my contributions to climate-change articles. I think your previous effort fell somewhat short on that score, so any improvement is welcome. I disagree with the spin you've attached to some of my edits (for example, this seems like routine cleanup of an obviously inappropriate link rather than any sort of participation in a climate-change dispute). But rather than counter that spin I'm happy to let the diffs speak for themselves. My activity on climate-change articles has been minor at best, and virtually nil in the past year or more, so I'm comfortable that any accurate representation will convey that. MastCell Talk 00:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And your nearly two hundred edits on Steven Milloy are now officially chopped liver?  You have a different definition of "minor at best" than I have ... Collect (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're correct to note I've edited that article heavily. In the interest of completeness, you might also want to note that I lasted edited its content more than 2 years ago. That sort of detail would probably be useful to an objective observer attempting to determine whether I was involved in a direct, current editing dispute on the subject of climate change. MastCell Talk 03:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas - you appear to have said that you had not edited in that area. Meanwhile, some of the other edits you made were more recent than "more than 2 years ago" .   os under a year old.   under a year.   under a year.  And many more.   You last edited Steven Milloy in April 2010, which is an eensy bit less than 2 years ago.  Collect (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think I said that. I said that my edits on the subject of climate change were "minor at best, and virtually nil in thepast year or more." I think that's a reasonable representation, and I'm not sure why you've embellished it. I find your presentation of my editing history to be misleading, at best, and I'm disheartened by your unwillingness to address obvious flaws or inaccuracies in your claims. Instead, you keep trying different lines of attack. But even there I don't think you're being completely forthright. For instance, you note I've edited Steven Milloy in April 2010, but (uniquely) you don't provide a diff for that edit. Here it is - the removal of a drive-by tag. For that matter, I reverted an obvious WP:BLP violation on the article here in April 2010. I'm comfortable that anyone objectively reviewing those contributions will not view them as participation in an editorial dispute related to climate change, nor did either of them materially affect the article's content, as I said above. It's probably best if we let this go. You are, of course, free to make whatever representations you like about my editing history. I'm increasingly convinced that you are not guided by the actual record, but by a desire to adjust the context of my edits in an effort to prove your belief that I'm involved. Perhaps I'm being uncharitable, but in any case it makes it hard to find common ground going forward. So on my end I'll drop it, with a request (which are free to ignore) that you make an effort to scrupulously represent the content and nature of my editing. MastCell Talk 20:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved
I have moved your comment from the fully uninvolved line to the involved line, as you have had substantial participation in the enforcement of the sanctions, though not the editing of the topic space. Hipocrite (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Point out my "substantial participation." Thank you most kindly. BTW, move Fences and Windows also - he edited on Monbiot, etc.   Collect (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not discussing editorial involvement. However, you have multiple substantial edits to Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Diffs on request. Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Now pray tell which of those indicated in any way whatever an involvement with the CC debate? Or is my commenting at RFC/U for Lar also "involvement"?   There comes a point at which joci causa is the only interpretation I can make for this sideplay. Collect (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The section that your comment should have gone in was quite clear it states - "Editors involved in ... the enforcement of this probation." You are involved in the enforcement of the probation. Hipocrite (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin - hence can have no ability at all to enforce the probation. I made one comment that the solution for POV is to add balancing views. This is WP policy, and shows no position otherwise. Next ealrier comment by me was a really POV edit <g> saying that WP:V is policy.  Prior to that also WP:V staing that the NYT is RS even if it is "wrong." Also straight from WP policy.  Prior to that - comments stating that WP rules and policies are rules and policies.  If saying that WP has policies and rule makes one "involved" in CC disputes - then We are stuck on 1 April like Bill Murray on 2 Feb.    How, by the way, does stating that WP has policies make one "involved in the enforcement of the probation"?  I really wanna hear this one! Collect (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to be arguing that your position on the sanctioning of editors was right. I don't care. You were involved in the enforcement of the sanctions, thus, per the RFC section instructions, you are involved. Hope that helps! Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to meet you, Mr. Dunninger, mindreader. My posts dealt precisely and accurately with stating WP policy, and only with precisely and accurately reflecting policy.   Collect (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)