User talk:Collect/archive3

Seriously?
In what way is linking to an established reliable source "original research"? The citation is clear, absolutely regarding that Gas Pipeline section, and follows appropriately the prior text. -- Kickstart70 T C 18:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The AP article said the bidding rules were slanted against the major global gas companies. It tdid not say this was an impediment to the gas pipeline. Your use saying it was a problem for the pipeline was OR by WP standards. I was going to insert the correct language - that the AP felt the contract was slanted "against the giant global companies which control the gas rights," but another editor pointed out that the article was not strictly relevant to the claims made for it.  If you wish to claim that the global gas companies somehow were cheated in the bidding, then find a cite for that. If you feel they will win a contest about the bidding, find a cite for that. The AP article does neither. Collect (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Jihadists...
I was wondering what Sarah had gotten herself into this time! :) Fcreid (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is in the McCain campaign article -- hop in! Collect (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh... we'll see. Politics really doesn't interest me that much.  Some people do, though! Fcreid (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Mark Twain
Collect, I noticed you are a fan of Mark Twain. I am too. Here's a wonderful website that has quotes organized alphabetically by topic, and the site has other writings by Twain. Twain Quotes. Enjoy! Sylviecyn (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! See my user page  for why Twain has so many mots ascribed to himself. Collect (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

JTP
FYI, []. I requested the talk page be semi protected which it was for a few days. But the anon has returned spouting more BLP nonsense. I've reverted his trolling a few times and when I've done so he has blamed you for it. I'm not sure what his deal is, but since he's blaming you for what I've done, I wanted to make you aware. Dman727 (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly suspect he is a sock (sigh). In fact, I am about sure of it. Collect (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

edit warring
i put you up for review here:. my reason is that you repeatedly push for what you want in spite of others wishes. you think you are right and you seem unwilling to compromise. i tried to warn you about your excessive editing, but you said i was wrong. lets see what an outsider has to say. Brendan19 (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Intersesting -- you repeatedly insert contentious material in a BLP and report someone who points this out? Collect (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * your accusation that i violated 3rr in two places is factually wrong. please see the admin board and note your incorrect date.  also, as i understand it, 3rr means dont make more than 3 edits in 24hrs.  i made 3 on jtp and 2 on the other article.  please explain how you think this violates 3rr.  (and i understand that edit warring can be a violation even without making 4 edits.  my 3 edits were not the same revert and i doubt anyone would consider it edit warring).  thanks!  Brendan19 (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Try dealing with the actual results. And I would suggest 15 edits in a month is not "editwarring" by a long shot! I have now editted well over 250 pages -- and I think you have not. Thabnks! And please feel free not to reply. Collect (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * no need to be rude to one another. as for 250 pages, thats great, not sure what it has to do with the price of tea in china, but if youre really proud of it then more power to you.  since you are such a prodigious editor i am surprised that you havent yet corrected your factually incorrect accusation against me.  it is easily proveable that you had the wrong date here .  Brendan19 (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You corrected the errant date. I did not think it was of earthshattering importance as I had intended not to file any formal complaint about your editwarring and reversions. And try not to make personal comments about editors. I am thicker-skinned than many are.  Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber wikiquote
Let's straighten this out. Are there any rules barring having a Wikiquote link placed on a page? If not, the link should go. Opinion should not prevent the existence of a link.

Further, if you feel the WIkiquote article isn't neutral; please add more quotes to it. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * First - the Wikiquote pages has nothing which is not already on the JtP page, which makes it rather useless. Second, the WQ page does not have any rationale for what is, or is not, an important quote. Third, the WQ page has an exchange, and the "quote" given does not fall into what most people consider "quotable." So we have a link to what is a strange use of WQ at best, which copies whayt is already on the main page.  And I would like a template for WQ for pages which do not have what most people consider quotes -- which is something other people cite, attributing it to the quotee. Such as "The buck stops here" as a Truman quote.  Or "I'd rather be in Philadelphia" for W. C. Fields.  Alas, the closest one available is NPOV.  Collect (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's irrelevent what quote(s) are or aren't on the Wikiquote page. The Wikiquote page exists. People will not know about the existence of the page without the link on the main Wikipedia article. I have seen many Wikiquote pages that seem lopsided; having a link promotes more people adding to it.

2nd - the rationale for what it is, is what it is. In other words, it is a page with quotations. Which is exactly what Wikiquote is.

3rd - Liking a template is not the same as having one. There is truly no valid common sense reason for the link not to be there. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alas the "quote" on wikiquote is neither notable, nor not found in the article in the first place. Nor is it anything anyone else has "quoted" which makes the existence of the WQ page a puzzle. Sort of like having a link from a page of a transcript to the same material from the same transcript on a WQ page.  Collect (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of us quabbling, then, let's use our resources and both add some quotes. Agreeable? Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure -- but let's try to avoid transcripts in favor of finding stuff which is quotable stuff -- WQ is not the place for transcripts, but the place to find interesting quotes. K? Collect (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill White
You left a null edit about needing sources, but it seemed to concern a section that was fully sourced. Could you leave a {fact} tag or post something on the talk page? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Another person edited between my two attempted consecutive edits -- the "Questions" section was not reffed, and was likely not to have a ref. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the problematic material from the IP that was mentioned at BLPN. He keeps returning to add it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So I notice . Collect (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

JtP
I'll be nice about this, but we have well sourced information that Joe was not working legally as plumber. You don't seem to like that, but unless you feel that newsweek, the toledo blade, and MSNBC are all wrong (and you're somehow more knowledgeable than they are), please stop reverting this. Hardly good faith.Mattnad (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

First -- the police have had lots of opportunuity to arrest him. They haven't. There is no reason to believe the Ohio law on contractors is invalid. Second, the ref to the Ohio law includes "secondary" refs, which means the removal of that was improper. Third, addition of clearly contentious material falls under WP:BLP guidelines as removable. As for calling good faith edits "vandalism" - that is quite contrary to WP guidelines. Thankl you most kindly. Collect (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Collect, you are not as stupid as you're now pretending to be. There are many laws.  One one can break them without being subject to arrest. The problem with that law citation is your misinterpretation that's it's relevant in this instance.  Local officials, according the reliable sources you deleted, say otherwise.  Please, stick to the topics.Mattnad (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No civil actions taken. No administrative actions taken. No sign of any actions of any kind whatsoever. Seems clear to me that no one else considers JtPs acts as a plumber under the Newell license to be "illegal." As for personal attacks, thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, there was civil action. Per the nesweeek article you deleted "On Friday, those officials said a letter was being mailed to Wurzelbacher’s employer warning him to get into compliance with city codes or face the loss of the company’s license." Care to revise your position? Mattnad (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And the full content of the letter? Seems to me you are quite jumping the gun on calling any actions "illegal." And the Newell state contractors license can not be revoked by the city - and it is the state license under which the contractors law falls. Collect (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Collect, so then we can us the term "non-compliance" with the law. But note, you're making a big deal out the work "illegal" but I didn't use that term in the article  - you just deleted that material. If you're hanging your case on that argument, your justification doesn't hold up. And anyway, sounds like your agument is WP:SYN.  What's the problem with the reliable sources again?  WP:BLP allows for well sourced material and this is topical and relevant.  Mattnad (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is with contentious material being inserted without consensus. You have started a RfC, let that process play out, which is its intent. Collect (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah, but just because you don't like something, doesn't make it contentious as defined by WP:BLP.Mattnad (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you wait and see whether others feel it is contentious or not? See WP:TE as well. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on December 11 2008 to Joe the Plumber
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. The duration of the block is 24 hours.

Now you have something new to collect :-)

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber
Some thoughts. Usually or mostly WP:BRD applies but in this case it's different as I see it. I'll keep it in general so you can "add names" as you wish (and not blaming me to take a side which I'm not). There is indeed a long-term discrepancy between you and another editor, preventing this article to involve as it should since this is the main advantage of WP in comparison to written encyclopedias. When there are two extremely different views on how the article should look like and what should be included or excluded there is only one way out: Open up, think about what this article will look like in a few month or a year despite of what you're editing now and things can smooth down to a "normal" level (regarding editing). Just think about it and try to solve it. I'll post the same comment at "the other" editors talk page, thus staying neutral in this matter.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I actually do try to reach accords (see the User:Tautologist material) and will endeavor to do so in the future as well.  Collect (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't get the "User:Tautologist material". Your link leads to his user page which is his sandbox and I won't (understandably I guess) search further since his last edit was in October but if you "...try to reach accords..." you have to do your part to accomplish it as others have their part.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * i sincerely hope so. your opinions (usually opposite to mine) should be heard so that we can come up with a fair encyclopedia.  we just need to make sure that we are all actually listening to each other.  keep in mind that its ok to compromise and its ok if the page doesnt say exactly what you want it to.  hope to work with you in the future and not against you. Brendan19 (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mevish1
Can you please respond to my comment there? - Mgm|(talk) 11:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Did so. Collect (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we stop people altering the political stance of the Daily Mail. There is a guy who keeps changing it to 'populist'. The Mail is NOT populist in the slightest, it is clearly Conservative. Is there a way we can stop him vandalising it? Thanks Christian1985 (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know. I asked on the Talk page for any solid cite for "populist" -- but I suspect the editor involved just does not care. Collect (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do care, actually. And I'm not a 'vandal'. I suspected that the Daily Mail's political allegiance would be a matter of contention, but I didn't realise just how quickly it would be jumped on. One has to wonder what the agenda is here. Whether the paper is 'populist' or 'conservative' or 'Conservative' is actually really a rather subjective question. I suppose it could be argued that 'populist' isn't strictly a political tag. However, there is NO way you can state that it is 'clearly' Conservative, Christian1985. And as for this, Collect: "try as I might, I could not find a cite for calling the Daily Mail "populist" for political views"... well, you obviously didn't search very hard. Here are just a few quotes:
 * "This is the modern Daily Mail, the paper that is becoming more populist by the week as it seeks to become Britain's biggest-selling daily title."
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/jun/06/dailymail.mondaymediasection
 * "Philosophically it belongs to a tradition of emotional populism that has had many champions in the West..."
 * http://www.shakeupmedia.com/blog/2008/11/11/column-november-11th-in-defence-of-populism
 * "How on earth can a supposedly conservative paper take this editorial slant? Well, like fascism, it’s populist, and taps into the readers’ prejudices, fears, greed, selfishness and hatred..."
 * http://boatangdemetriou.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/why-the-daily-mail-is-a-fascist-not-a-conservative-paper —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suburbanslice (talk • contribs) 12:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that your cites do not say it is "populist" in political orientation, but that its "tone" or "slant" or "emotion" is "populist." As far as being aligned with any actual political group -- that alignmet is "Conservative." And it is alignment with a party or group which is what the infobox asks for. I would suggest the fact that a huge plurality of its readers call themselves "conservative" is sufficient. "Populist" is not a defined British party, organization or movement. Collect (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Who are you to say that a huge 'plurality' of the paper's readers call themselves "conservative"? More subjective opinion. Please also note my earlier comment about 'populist' not being a strictly political tag. I used those three quotes to demonstrate that there are actually references to the Daily Mail being populist. I originally made the change to see what kind of response would be generated, and you have mostly helped me to confirm my hypothesis. Suburbanslice (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The term is "political AFFILIATION"-- there is no "populist affiliation" in UK politics that I can find at all. Per cite in article, number of self-identified Conservatives reading the Daily Mail is way bigger than any other party.  Hence a reasonable statement that the paper is Conservative.   If you can show me any "populist party" in the UK, I would be delighted!  Collect (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well congratulations, another meaningless victory for supporters of the Daily Mail. I'm *very* happy for you. I'm also quite capable of reading non-bold text. Suburbanslice (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry -- my keyboard colon and semi-colon do not always function as designed. Collect (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)