User talk:Collect/archive2

Yankees
Look at History of baseball team nicknames for details, rather than my repeating myself too much. :) They were first called Yankees the same year they were first called Highlanders. I think which name was used varied from newspaper to newspaper. The same deal happened with the Cubs, which were called Colts by some papers and Cubs by others. Modern fans don't understand how things worked in those days. Nearly every nickname of the classic 16 teams originated in the newspapers. Sometimes the clubs even asked the reporters to come up with a new nickname. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I knew a bit about the nicknames -- what surprised me was the use of two names in a single article. Then I wondered if the nickname had an older basis .. guess I should read the article. Collect (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not unusual, then or now. Think of the Yankees being called the Bombers or other names. Or the White Sox being called the Pale Hose or the Chisox. Or the Cubs being called the North Siders or the Denizens of Wrigley. Now go back to the 1910s or 1920s, and you might see "Dodgers" and "Robins" in the same article; or "Senators" and "Nationals" (or "Nats") in the same article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

James Cagney donations
Hi there. Thanks for your addition of a source for this article. There's not much around on Cagney's politics, and I'll certainly include the ref (so it actually shows up, which it doesn't appear to in Categories) when I get round to writing about his politics, which seem to have changed during his lifetime. --11:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think his politics changed about the time he met Cohan . (I think the template specifically ignores refs, but they show up when editing -- either an undocumented feature or a glitch. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly, though i'd be reluctant to necessarily link the two things together without a reliable source to do it for me! --Ged UK (talk)


 * All is anecdotal - they met according to the studio, but Cohan died fairly soon after. Not that keeps WP articles from being laced with them, of course. My reference to "meeting Cohan", however, was to the work on YDD (hence the ), not the anecdote. I suspect the machinations of the CPUSA regarding the Russia-Germany treaty made a lot of folks rethink politics. Collect (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Aye, it's hard to source accurately. Certainly WW2 made lots of people re-assess their politics, perhaps unneccesarily, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if JC did too. --Ged UK (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Found hard copy of "Cagney by Cagney" -- fills in a bit. Collect (talk)

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin?
Please post at talk. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

MisterAlbert
Hi. Please see this. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I am not totally surprised at this, having read up on his history. Dave Collect (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am unsure what template I deled. Collect (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? I deled a section (not a "template") in dispute which has an absurd number of references attached. In addition, the reason was given in the edit summary. And I would appreciate AGF. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point is well-made (whether I agree with your reasoning or not), and I apologize. This issue tends to bring out the worst in all of us, I fear. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! Collect (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Talk:Joe_the_Plumber Inclusionist (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Facts707...
This guy/girl is obviously collaborating with 4Ls, but I don't know how to handle this. I could employ a strategy well-known by Powell regarding Theater Nuclear War, but I don't see this as worth taking myself out of the picture for just a pawn. Appreciate any suggestion. Fcreid (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Several editors have cross-linked spoor on user talk pages at this point. This one may be a sockpuppet for sure, to aid in a wrestling event. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin image?
I note that the CFD tag is removed on the "Palin-Nowhere" image, but I can not find any report that WP had received proper license yet. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was removed incorrectly by the uploader. I've restored it. Nice catch. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish there was a WP:ASSUMEACCIDENT article ... Collect (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No tag on SP page at all, at least the tag is on the image page. Collect (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is now due time for the image removal if I read correctly. Collect (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't delete the image myself, as it was I who tagged it. You could tag it as . Stifle (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I tagged it. ALL tags were removed by agr on the gounds that the "editors" decided they could not replace it with text. I pointed out this was wrong, but do not know the procedure to reinstate the deletion tag. Collect (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

inuse
I had some problems creating this request. Please look at my edit history.

I am sorry for any problems or confusion which I caused. I added a tag to the page, please confine your comments to the talk page for now, and you can remove the comments which are in the wrong sections later after I am done and remove the  tag. Again, sorry for the confusion. Inclusionist (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have finished creating the Requests for mediation/Joe the Plumber and removed the tag. You are welcome to edit. I suggest moving your comments elsewhere. The only comments on the actual page should be what issues to be resolved. Again, I apologize for the confusion and thanks for your understanding and patience. I respect your tenacity and passion on this issue. Inclusionist (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP privacy policy for limited public figures
I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG &#x260E; 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have provided substantial input on that policy, based on an increasing body of international law. Collect (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin talk page
I removed a comment before you, as the talk page is not a forum for providing links to whereever. Hope you don't mind. Cheers! --Tom 13:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OH . Straight commercial spam that. Collect (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Muthee
Thanks for your efforts on the Thomas Muthee page. However, you pulled some sources because they were in another language. While I understand your objection, that leaves the sentence totally unsourced. Please put the sources back, or (sadly for me, who worked hard to find it) take out the whole sentence. Regards. FangedFaerie ( Talk  |  Edits ) 18:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I really think that we can find English sources for almost all of it -- using sources which few understand has been done in the past to insert erroneous material in some articles. Surely there is a Kenya paper which will give the opening dates for the school? Jclemens will, I think, vouch for my feelings on sources.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REF#Sources_in_different_languages "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber. However, do use sources in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." is the official style guideline for WP.   Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool down
Take another look. He did not do what you think he did. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

He did move stuff around -- the worse stuff was the other day. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No he copied stuff, He probably could have done with putting it in quotes but I do think he did it in good faith. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Still confusing after all the 30 edits overnight. I fear I think he is abusing process in order to prevent reaching a consensus he does not desire. Collect (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No I don't think so. I actually think his edits today are to try and reach a consensus. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mirabile visu! Collect (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Prescott Bush
Please do not feed the trolls as you are doing on this talk page. Engaging in such conversation is pointless and only disrupts the talk page further. Instead, you should remove all discussions not related to article edits. --Ave Caesar (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the time it has actually worked -- so while I appreciate the suggestion (and I have deleted pure trolls) I felt that this particular case as it reflected what had made it into the main article in the past had to be addressed. Yes -- that stuff had once been in the main article. Sigh. Collect (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Diffs and such...
Think you whacked the entire topic in talk that outlined Facts707 initial deletion of the entire VP Campaign section along with the blob that later stuck in. Could probably revert talk and just rv that one change. Also, given that Facts hasn't defended his wholesale deletion from the main article, if you need me to rv anything until that's settled, just let me know. Fcreid (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * All I saw was the seemingly intact reprint of the article section. Sorry if I erred. Collect (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem whatsoever. I'm actually ambivalent to the wholesale deletion of the Campaign pieces, but despite WP:AGF I smell a rat, and something tells me that resulting subarticle will start collecting all those smears that have been discounted in the main one. :( Fcreid (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Barbara West
Not a problem. Several editors have been working on it to improve the references and to neutralize the language. Thanks for the head up! SmallRepair (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess you can see what I thought -- several places I have seen subtle stuff worked in by making big shuffles . Collect (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Is there any reason other than your edit summary of "nope" that you removed this reliably sourced statement on the Joe the Plumber article? Bstone (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It qualifies as trivia -- it is unrelated to the campaign issues, nor to any bio of SJW. Collect (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It adds to his notability and is not trivia under any sense of it. Please do not remove reliably sourced sections in the future. Bstone (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Belated reply
Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Off topic Joe the Plumber discussion moved
Hello, the discussion on the Joe the Plumber talk page had wandered significantly from improving the article and has been moved per WP:TPG to if you wish to continue your discussion. -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Edward Nottingham
When you deleted the external link to the "dossier", you also deleted all the categories. Please check your edits in the future. bd2412 T 05:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Good to see you again, Dave. Frank Fcreid (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Was I gone that long? Kidney stones tend to knock one off balance, I fear. Collect (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think ya made a boo boo, at talk:Sarah Palin. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What boo boo? I know I can err for sure, but the only odd point I made was about the Rasmussen poll?  If it were put in, the floodgates of other polls being put in would open, IMHO. Collect (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The lower half of the talk-page's posts were made small. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I thunk I had it right (first try made everything tiny) -- I think blockquote malfunctions as I checked preview and it looked ok here (sigh). Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merci beaucoup. Collect (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin BLP violation????
In what way does this remotely violate WP:BLP?:


 * Palin's high profile in the 2008 presidential campaign has fueled speculation of that Palin may run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, and as of November 2008, there is an active "Draft Palin" movement. However, Palin has so far not expressed interest in seeking the presidency in 2012, telling CNN, "Right now I cannot even imagine running for national office in 2012."

It simply states that there are elements of the Republican Party that want her to run in 2012, and that she has presently stated she has no interest in that. All of this is non-controversial and cited from verifiable sources. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a conjecture which is contrary to what she has stated herself. Thus it fails under the "conjecture" pare of BLP. Sort of like saying "Some people say John Doe is considering running for Congress, but John Doe is denying it" -- all it is, is speculation. Even from CNN, speculation remains speculation. Collect (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was just checking out your talk page to see if any comments had been posted about me, and I noticed that you were giving out some mistaken advice.


 * Conjecture is absolutely fine in a BLP, as per BLP policy/guidelines. Just wanted to make sure you understood that, so you can avoid making further erroneous claims in the future. You had made the same incorrect assertion at various points on the Palin talk page, and I corrected you, but I'm not sure the message got through. Best. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." As for seeking to intimidate anyone, it does not work. Facts are what belong in a BLP, not conjecture. Collect (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is really frustrating talking with you and having to explain every basic concept in every policy, over and over. Take a look at the policy you just quoted: "Remove any contentious material about living persons ... that is a conjectural interpretation of a source".


 * Referencing conjecture which directly appears in a source is not a conjectural interpretation of a source. Taking a source which includes no conjecture and then adding your own conjecture to it, or adding conjecture that is different from the conjecture that appears in the source is a conjectural interpretation of a source. That is original research. Conjecture which appears in a source is NOT.


 * Your repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated suggestion that conjecture, allegations, etc, do not belong in a BLP, is plainly contradicted by the very language of the BLP policies. You can assert your own novel interpretation all you like, but the fact is, you're wrong and your wrongness is spelled out in the actual letter of the BLP policy.


 * PS, This is about the tenth time I've explained this exact point to you. Could you PLEASE READ the policy carefully before making assertions about it to other editors? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And the fact remains that your interpretation of the BLP rules about conjecture and mine differ. The conjecture which is barred is material which posits material other than current fact.  BLPs are for facts about a person. Period. Opinions? Sometimes, but only clearly identified as opinion. Crystal ball gazing? Not. WP:CRYSTAL "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. " "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen."  Is this more clear now? Material which is not set in the future is not really BLP material, else we would have "what if?" scattered throughout all of WP. As for your ungracious and tendentious lecturing, it is ill-suited to WP. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The comments about WP:Crystal need to be directed at the person who wanted to add material about Palin's future political prospects. Your comments about your blatantly contradictory opinion about what you think the BLP guidelines say -- which, in point of provable fact, they do not say -- are simply not applicable. If someone sets a house on fire, you arrest him for arson -- you don't arrest him for "illegal thumb twiddling" when he wasn't twiddling his thumbs and twiddling your thumbs isn't illegal. Thus, if someone tries to add crystal balling conjecture from a source, you disqualify it based on WP:Crystal instead of making up some fake rule that conjecture from a reliable source cannot go in an article.


 * Again, not that I expect you to understand or acknowledge this, your claim is DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED by the BLP guidelines.


 * See: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article". BY DEFINITION, AN ALLEGATION IS A CONJECTURE. And the guidelines say relevant allegations go in. So you can see the BLP guidelines clearly do not prohibit conjecture. SOME conjecture is prohibited on other grounds, such as being irrelevant or unsourced. There is simply no aspect of the BLP guidelines that says all conjecture is prohibited -- yet you repeatedly assert this fictitious, non-existent rule in an effort to bully other editors who attempt to make reference to relevant, reliable source material. That point goes on top of the fact that your nonsensical transformation of "Material which is a conjectural interpretation of a source is prohibited" into the fictitious, non-existent rule that "Conjectures made by a source are prohibited" is a total, obvious, verifiable distortion of what the plain English of the rules say.


 * You are free to re-write BLP guidelines in your head, but those imaginary guidelines are only applicable in your own imaginary Wikipedia that exists only in your head. If you think 2 + 2 = 5, I can prove you're wrong, but I can't make you believe it.


 * PS, Facts about opinions are facts, and go in a BLP when appropriate. You can say this isn't so, but you are wrong, and your wrongness, like the other wrongness I detailed above, is spelled out in the BLP guidelines. Thank you most kindly.


 * PPS. Your behavior is CONSTANTLY abusive, even more so when you've been proven wrong and feel the need to lash out at the other person in order to cover up the fact that your views have just been comprehensively shown to be false. The first numerous times you asserted a false rule, I chalked it up to a misunderstanding. But now, after having the rule explain to you, you persist in attempting to spread false Wikipedia rules, and it constitutes ongoing abuse.


 * Thank you most kindly. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * An "allegation" is not a "conjecture." Allegation: "1. Something alleged; an assertion: allegations of disloyalty. 2.  The act of alleging.  3. A statement asserting something without proof: The newspaper's charges of official wrongdoing were mere allegations. 4.  Law An assertion made by a party that must be proved or supported with evidence. "  Conjecture: "1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.  2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation. 3. Obsolete. the interpretation of signs or omens. " As for charging me with "ongoing abuse" such a charge is fatuous ab initio. Thank you most kindly, but each time you assert soemthing is in the archives, and it ain't there, that is far more abusive than my claim that "allegation" and "conjecture" are substantively different. Collect (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * By definition, all allegations are conjectural. A conjecture is something which is asserted but not proven. An allegation is a specific type of conjecture: an unproven ACCUSATION. If X is a subset of Y, all X are Y. Thus all allegations are conjectures, but not all conjectures are allegations. XOXO Hope that helps. PS, Your claim that sourced conjecture is prohibited in BLPs is completely without substantiation by any text of the BLP guidelines, as I demonstrated above. Two plus two still equals four even if you say it equals five. PPS the discussion and sources I said were in the archives... are in the archives. I linked them. The newspaper articles haven't been burned, the discussions haven't been deleted. Have a great day.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. All "allegations" are not "conjectural." The terms are not in any way synonymous. As for your misstatements of what I write, I would kindly ask you to desist, as it really clutters up my Talk page. Dictionaries would probably help you a lot. Collect (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not say they were synonymous, as they're not. "Allegations" are a subset of "conjectures". Thus all allegations are conjectures, but all conjectures are not allegations. And all this is somewhat beside the point, since your claim that BLP policies prohibit sourced conjecture is based on a horrible misreading of the plain English meaning of the BLP policy which prohibits conjectural interpretations of a source, which are original research. If the source makes the conjecture, it's not original research; if the editor makes the conjecture, it is. Not that I expect you to acknowledge or understand this obvious truth. You seem determined to distort policy in whatever way suits your purpose at any given time. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nor are "allegations" a subset of "conjectures." Nor are any of your logical statements, logical. As for your attempts to misstate my position, that is a matter for your own conscience someday. Try writing without attacking people. Collect (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Allegations are a subset of conjectures. All allegations are conjectural: they are unproven. And sourced conjecture can be perfectly legitimate material for a BLP. This is perfectly logical, logical and un-illogical. And I have not misstated you at any time: you have said plainly, in plain English, with clear meaning, that BLP policies prohibit conjectural material, but they plainly don't. Your comments about my conscience and my supposed "attacks" represent nothing more than a further attempt to change the subject escape the obvious conclusion that you are in the wrong yet refuse to admit it.


 * To wit, BLP guidelines do not prohibit conjectural material, yet you repeatedly, repeatedly, plainly, and falsely say that they do.


 * You may continue to believe that black is white and 2 + 2 = 5, but do not try to convince another editor of this and ESPECIALLY do not attempt to disqualify any material from an article based on this nonsense. If you do, I will correct you again. Your attempts to change the subject in order to escape having your wrongness demonstrated, will fail, and you will be shown to be wrong. That is all. Good day. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Um -- "allegations" are still not a subset of "conjectures." Saying something that ain;t so over and over does not make it so. By the way, when you ascribe a quote to me, I would appreciate it if it were an actual quote from me. What I have said is "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." (actual quote from WP:BLP)  Note that there are several classes of material referred to.  "Conjectural interpretation of a source" is specifically disallowed.  As for the precise real quote -- it remains correct.   And please stop iterating your "allegations are a subset of conjectures" silliness here. You have said it enough, and it still is wrong. Collect (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All allegations are conjectural -- they are unproven. You can say it's not so, but it is. If they were not conjectural, they would be proven, and therefore would no longer be allegations, because the "without proof" condition would no longer be satisfied.


 * Conjectural interpretations of sources ARE indeed specifically disallowed -- as I have repeatedly agreed.


 * References to conjectures made by sources are not disallowed, no matter how many times you say it.


 * As I said, you may persist in your delusion, but do not try to force other users to abide by your own personal policy that BLPs may not contain any conjectural material, because that is not Wikipedia policy. And if you object to something being included in an article, I highly recommend you find an actual Wikipedia policy which supports removal of it, instead of distorting one or making one up whole cloth. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Use a dictionary. As for your insistence on misciting what I write, it reflects mainly on you.  Your allegations are absurd, and my conjectures about you would be unprintable.  Allegations are not, never have been, and never will be, a "subset of conjectures."  As for using the word "delusion" -- you are so far from normal etiquette that I wonder about those "conjectures" which I now have about you. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said, just don't try to force other users to abide by this fictitious rule you have made up, and you may believe whatever nonsense you like. On Wikipedia, Wikipedia policy is the law of the land. Have a great weekend. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I made up no rule, and your "quotes" of me were not quotes, I fear the "nonsense" is part of the conjecture I have made about you.  But no allegation. Collect (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fun facts....
This stuff was fun to dig up diff... though I probably sourced it too well.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 15:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  I deled a couple of overkill sources, I hope I chose ok. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problemo. I thought it better to give too many than to have someone question where the information came from... or worse, to have it said "only one source reports this", before a none-discussed deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know how things ran before -- this time I trust the consistent system will make it a decent article. Collect (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Barbar West
While I believe that you may have an argument for decreasing the content, I'm concerned that you are edit warring while not participating in the talk page's discussion. Let's take this to the talk page. Three editors have been previously banned for 24 hours for 3RR violations on this page. Thanks! &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 01:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting assertion, though there is no way my edits could be construed as "edit warring." Collect (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Further you seem to forget that I have, indeed, gone to Talk, quite a bit whilst you have been absent from the discussion. Kindly do not make false assertions. Collect (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I realize that you have participated in the talk page whilst edit warring. Please, I encourage you to read up on WP:3RR and in particular WP:BRD so you aren't the fourth editor banned from the page. Thanks. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 12:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 12:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your accusation is ill-founded at best, and abusive at worst. As I have not come anywhere near your claim of multiple reversions with 24 hours, I fear it is just plain abuse on your part. Kindly desist from such. Per WP:BLP, contentious material requires consensus to be reinserted, not the other way around. " Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't fall into the same trap as others have done. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 13:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you asserting that you are using this as a trap of some sort? Collect (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm asserting that you are walking into your self-made trap. Please see Steve Defour's talk page who made the exact same arguments as you. Let's do this on the talk page. I'm working to respond to your points now. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 13:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I made repeated contributions on Talk while you ignored Talk. I am adding information on Olbermann to show his biases, which is proper if you do not want any eitwar for sure. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That's great -- let's work on the talk page! &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 13:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been there all this time. I fear you just didn't read it? Collect (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber 3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Conversely it appears to be you who is ignoring consensus in order to edit war. Kindly take this as your own warning. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Muthee
Did you even LOOK at what you pulled out? One was an article from The Jewish Journal, the other was an AP article! The citations were from the text, NOT the video. I'm undoing your edits. Regards. FangedFaerie ( Talk  |  Edits ) 18:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Give a link to the text -- it appeared a video was being used as the cite which a person in another area claimed ... I left in, I thought, the links to text. Sorry. Collect (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know I don't own that article, but I've worked pretty hard on it with other editors to make it as NPOV as possible. My apologies for being testy, but your drive-by was pretty frustrating. No hard feelings, though. Regards. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 11:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In Sarah Palin an editor was seeking to have the Muthee videos inserted as RS for Palin believing in "witchcraft" . Collect (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. What part of "encyclopedia" is hard to understand for people? Regards. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 13:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Far too many do not understand what NPOV means, and what "facts" are. Try looking at WP:BLP/N where I am trying to get outside opinions on what Joe the Plumber's "coocupation" is for his infobox . Gosh -- they are trying to put POV in to that (but Sarah Palin has "fisherwoman" in hers at one point . ) Collect (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Plumber's Helper - If You Are Seriously Curious
At least in some circles, it refers to an auger or "snake." Please ignore this if you aren't really interested. Since you keep bringing this up, I thought you might like this link though.

www.ehow.com/how_2273747_buy-plumbers-helper-snake.html

VictorC (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

NO American dictionary defines "plumber's helper" as "snake." None. Your cite is an example of "on the cheap" advertising sites, as shown by the huge total of ZERO ratings for the article . Who writes for ehow? "We also have a rapidly growing library of articles created by eHow's members." In short -- slightly less usable as a source than WP is. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your question
Hello Collect, and thank you for your contributions. Regarding you comment, please see: Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat, which may save a long discussion in talk :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I do think the list of references needs pruning, along with details of his teachings -- it is more a treatise on his group now than a biography of him. Perhaos the "teachings" which are covered in other articles (Divine Light Mission, I think?) could be greatly shortened? Collect (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See Teachings of Prem Rawat which expands on the subject. As for the current discussion in talk, please check Talk:Prem_Rawat/Leader_of which demonstrate how the overwhelming majority of sources describes him. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Then much of the bio relating to specific teachings could be pruned? I am not concerned with how his friends and critics feel -- I think both pretty much have to have some representation in the article, but the sheer bulk is what I would like to work on . Too many WP articles get out of control, I fear. Especially on Talk pages.  For my philosophy, right or wrong, see User:Collect/thoughts Collect (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the essay... pretty good actually. I offer you a good quote that I came across a few days ago from Mark Twain:


 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice Twain quote! Variant on a Will Rogers quote which really goes back to Josh Billings . "It ain't what people don't know that hurts them it's what they know that ain't so" Collect (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right... the author of the book in which I found the quote, says this about it in a footnote: "Possibly apocryphal. or a paraphrase of sayings by Josh Billings; See Kim A. McDonald, Mark Twain's Famed Humorous Sayings Are Found to Have Been Missatributted to Him. Chronicle of Higher Education, September 4. 19991, A8. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I read most of Twain before I was 10 -- my dad had the Harper "Complete Works" which were, of course, quite incomplete . JFK said he would have liked to have had dinner with Jefferson. My choice would be Twain, hands down.  Collect (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am with you on this! I also read Twain as a child, but in Spanish, though... Which is not the same thing as in the original English as I later learned... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I read Cervantes in English -- same sort of experience? (In English he used a lot of very long words in translation ) Collect (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Twain used simple words, mainly -- which makes translation easier, but the dialects must have caused a coronary for the translator! I still prefer simple English in articles, too much "purple prose" infects WP at times. Collect (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Noting your spelling, I think you do not like the British spelling of "judgement"? And "deled" is a proofreading term from "dele" (I had too many newspapermen as relatives) Your changes are ok, as the words have the same meaning. . Collect (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please have a word with this user? First she posts this

... calling editors "bald-faced liars"...

...and then she tells another user off, with this:

This user is known to not participate in editing, just coming to talk pages to "raise hackles". Of course, given the circumstances, it is pointless for me to raise the issue with her. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I trust my response to this person may make them rethink the tone of their posts. I suspect you know I am not a follower of Rawat, but that I want any article to be scrupulously fair. Is there any specific issue I ought to address? I removed some of the surplus wordage about teachings, and hope I have not cut into the quick. On the other hand, if I can cut more, tell me . Collect (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can cut the whole section - it's already covered in another article. As for Sylvie, she's doing what Jossi has also committed to doing: only posting to the talk page. For some reason Jossi portrays that as a bad thing. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See Article_probation. Anyone is welcome to talk page discussions, but not welcome to be uncivil. The article and talk page are still under probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am officially not on the "I found a misspelling" patrol . Collect (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What's your stake?
"One more sign of vitriol in the article." -- vitriol (which is not an English word originally) is not a matter of pointing out the truth. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Intresting that your first edit was at 02:24, on 21 June 2006, and yet your real edit history begins in September 2008. As I say, interesting. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you charging me with anything? In case you did not bother to read my User page, you would note that I have been busy online for more than 26 years. I have used WP since 2005, though I did not "register" until 2006. I trust this is longer than you have been online. I ahve also read somewhere over 6 million words online, and posted over 500,000 words in posts and articles, and managed over 500 gigabytes of images and files.  I have had no connection whatever with any campaign involving any edits I made, and so I wonder just what your intent is from this post. "Origin: 1350–1400; ME < ML vitriolum, vitreolum, equiv. to L vitre(us) vitreous + -olum, neut. of -olus -ole 1 " Vitriol has been an English word for about 650 years now.  Thank you most kindly.  Collect (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Helen Jones-Kelly 3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Mattnad (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As all my edits were made in an effort to reach compromise and consensus, your warning is errant. Collect (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

JtP
Follow your own advice, "Do I hear POV rearing its head? The article is not a place for editorializing". &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 23:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please beware of 3RR at Political machine
Just a friendly reminder. So far, Scott has no support, and there's no need to revert at all for now. Incidentally, Google Books has put this old 1911 book entirely online, even in a http text version. I think any extended definition of "political machine" will mention that it's used pejoratively. The book I linked to says that, too. But I'll go with whatever the sources say. Cheers, Noroton (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Intersting -- but the people I knew in politics had no problem with the use of "political machine."  As for 3RR, I trust I am quie far from that bright line indeed.  Collect (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)