User talk:Collect/archive7

"How to" question re talk pages
Collect, you might be able to clue me in on something -- on a talk page, the conversation sometimes zips along fairly rapidly, and it seems most convenient for people to keep posting at the bottom of the page, but what if you want to post a reply to something that's further up the page? For example at the bottom of the "Starting_from_option_3" section of the mediation page I posted a comment on some language you proposed, but the conversation had already continued extensively below that, so do I just have to assume that people will look for new posts further up the page, or should I have posted at the bottom of the page with an explanation that I'm talking about something posted further up the page, or what? I didn't see anything about this on Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Talk_pages). Thanks Benccc (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you choose "edit" you will discover that people replying to a post will use colons to indent their reply -- WP custom is that you can add replies pretty much amywhere on a page using that system. A lot of people use a "watch list" which means they see when the last post was made to a page -- to see recent additions use "search" on the page for the current date (like "15 mar" will let you see each post made on that date as you go down the page,) I hope this helps! Collect (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got the hang of the colon thing now, but wasn't sure how people kept track of where new comments were. The watchlist and search method you mentioned makes sense.  Thanks.  Another question if you don't mind -- what's the standard re "outdenting," and why do people sometimes write "outdent" when they do it? Benccc (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When you get too many indents, the page looks sorta like thins. "outdent" is a convenient way of getting back to a more normal layout.

(out)Sometimes you will see "ec" at the start of a post. This does not refer to the old publisher of Mad Magazine, but means "edit conflict." Sometimes you will get an "edit conflict" warning when you are trying to say an edit -- just copy your edit, and paste it back in place in the top edit box. Then you will be all set! I hope this helos. Collect (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Collect. That does help.  But why do people write "(out)" or "(outdent)" at the start of the post?  I mean, it's self-evident they're outdenting, no?  Is it just a quick way to say "hey, this thread is getting pretty skinny and I'm just gonna widen it back out"?  Maybe I've answered my own question there....  But is it frowned upon to just outdent without putting "(out)" or "(outdent)" at the start? Benccc (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a bit if an affectation as far as I can tell, but one person complained when I did not do it when I widened the thread, asying that he was unsure whom I was replying to .  In any case, when a thread gets too narrow (typographically), I find it harder to read.  Meanwhile I still favor short posts.  WRT "compromise" since it is part of how mediation works, I am still amazed at those who feel it is a "we win, you lode" sort of thing. And in cae they think ArbCom will take this - they won't. Arbitration is for cases of misconduct, not for cases of editorial disagreement, which is what we have here.   Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the insights into WP protocol.... I share your understanding of Arbitration.  As for compromise, I agree that "winning" and "losing" have nothing to do with our responsibilities as editors.  Outside of adherence to policy (to which compromise doesn't apply) it seems clear that editors must negotiate to resolve different opinions on how we may best serve readers.  How important/relevant is an issue?  Where in an article should it be placed?  How might a paragraph flow best?  How reliable is that source?  All matters of opinion and negotiation. Benccc (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you can see why "non negotiable" hits a bad chord for me . The policy which counts, IMHO, is producing a BLP which will still be accurate in a century.  Too many people feel "if I can fnd someone saying this, that therefore it must be in the article" which results in very bad articles indeed. Another problem is the belief that all POVs can be handled by simply piling on stuff with the other POV until the article is a couple hundred thousand words long .  It is far easier to write a too long article than to write one which is short and correct.  Lastly, there is a temptation in WP to add multiple cites for every single word written.  Heck, I have seen up to a dozen or more cites used for a single word -- and yet I do not think it enhances the information conveyed one ounce.  Editors should use blue pencils. Collect (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about "accurate in a century." If we say "the Titanic sank," how could that be any more or less accurate a century from now? Nonetheless we see many things simililarly. I think that editors diminish the value of an article by adding information indiscriminately; that deciding which information to exclude from an article may be difficult and contentious but is often necessary; that editors do readers a disservice when they try to influence readers' opinions of a subject, particularly when editors compete with each other to see who can pile on more information that expresses a particular POV; and that the quality of citations is much more important than the volume. I think editors sometimes pile on citations in response to the contention that a point is false or unverified. The larger problem, of which these are all (I believe) sub-problems, is that editors can easily lose sight of how best to serve readers. Would a significant number of readers find a piece of information illuminating or useful? Is the information presented coherently, and is it integrated well into the surrounding article? It seems especially difficult to keep the interests of readers in mind during editing disputes. Benccc (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Too many editors use their own strong views (even if not "COI" it comes dang near close to it  especially when some use "COI" as a way of eliminating other legitimate viewpoints) rather than seeking an article which will stand for a century. "The Titanic sank" is pretty much a fact. The reasons why it sank are not as clear ... we could have one editor saying "it was capitalist greed" which sank it, another that it was "too much faith in God protecting those 'in peril on the sea'", another citing the Captain's ignoring the iceberg warnings, another saying it was the fragility of the steel used.  In fact, the last is likely a major cause, but it was not known until well after that "article" was putatively written.  Rather I see a lot of the heated discussions about Gladstone and Disraeli, heated arguments which today are not really treated with as much gravity as they were then.   If you will recall the trial where the White King used "unimportant" and "important" as though they were the same word?  In my experience, fully 90% of what people insist is "important" in biographies, isn't.  Collect (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Benccc (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Please see my responses at Articles for deletion/Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Attacks against the Messiah
Dear Collect, Some people are attacking and harassing The Messiah at the Gates of Rome. Please help. Tnak you. Das Baz 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people have commented and edited the article, including me. I don't know how you harass an article so I assume he's accusing people of harassing him. But you will make your own judgement I'm sure. I think everyone has been trying to improve the article, and that there's a bit of WP:OWN here. dougweller (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That well may be. All I can do is look at an article I have looked at in the past, see whay appears to be a problem, and try to help out in some small way.   I have seen a lot of WP:OWN though in articles --  it is way too common!  Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing
You were mentioned by an editor here: WP:ANI. I suggest taking a deep breath before responding so a war of words can be avoided. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The editor who wrote to the EB does not post what he wrote. His comments about me and outing me as "James C" was improper, his actions since even more so. Collect (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You forgot to take the deep breath advised. I never "outed" you, I simply stated that someone of that name made the change, which is public knowledge. Outing involves disclosing secret information. You also falsely assume that I said something nasty about you to EB. How old are you? Stop being childish and grow up. ► RATEL ◄ 13:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC) (Personal attack removed)


 * Any reason not to post what you actually wrote to EB? And you put a name in quotation marks "James C--" -- what precisely was that name intended to convey?   As for the rest of your post -- NPA. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What does it matter? Stop it! This is silly. I put quote marks to show I was quoting something written elsewhere. Take a walk in the sunshine. ► RATEL ◄ 14:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And yet most people saying someone wrote something would not think to put the name, and only the name, in quotes. Might you show me where you routinely do so? I admit it may just be a matter of your personal style about names. Collect (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Conservatism origins
I'm not allowed to change for fear of violating the 3RR, so might I suggest for style changing the opening paragraph to something like: "Conservatism is a political and social term from the latin term conservare meaning to save or preserver. As the name suggests is usually indicates support for the status quo or the status quo ante, though the meaning has changed in different countries and time periods. Cultural conservatism is a philosophy that supports preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture." Just a suggestion Soxwon (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Latin" is capitalized -- see how the Latin derivation is handled in the Plumber article, perhaps that would work? We also do not need "status quo" in there really ... I would say "traditional state of affairs" as being quite adequate without going into Latin lessons . The "meaning" remains the same -- I think you mean "It may have varying connotations in different countries and historical periods"? Sound right? Collect (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding allegations and extraneous material to mediation
Collect: I have recently removed two blocks of text added by you in the mediation. Allegations or other material unrelated to the issues under mediation do not belong on the mediation discussion page. Please confine your remarks on that page to the issues at hand. 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Material was in response to personal asides or attacks, and not intended in any way to interfere with te mediation. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail
Can we please remove the 'POV statement' on the Daily Mail political slant. I am a Mail reader and it is clearly a Conservative newspaper. It has never ever supported the BNP or far-right. Can we please stop the left-wing critics altering the article. I find claims of BNP support quite offensive and libellous. Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As do I. They have also said "Nazi" and "fascist" in the past as well. "Conservative" is moreover well-sourced. Collect (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, such claims are nothing short of ridiculous. You have provided more than enough sources to support the 'Conservative' slant. Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. And drop in here soon. Collect (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My talk page
I have to temporarily revert your addition. No offense intended. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots


 * No problem -- glad to see Twain's remark about his death seems to apply to your full retirement! Collect (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The same user has added BNP to the Daily Mail article again for the third time. They have been warned several times and have now posted a citation which quite frankly proves nothing. Is there someone I can report them to for this persistent vandalism? Christian1985 (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Referring to the IP above -- not to Bugs . I noted it, but you got there before I did this time.  WP rarely does a full block of an IP -- but maybe an admin will take pity on us. Collect (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitions
As I said, because the definition isn't concise, removal of items that don't fit the narrower definitions isn't appropriate. Only a few weeks ago the Falangists were being counted in this group, and removal of them wouldn't have been appropriate either. The section mentions the notation of political academics, and a para-fascist is appropriate in an article on fascism. Just be careful you're not cutting to meet your opinion of what the definitions are. For me, personally, having this section was helpful in giving concrete examples of groups that appear to be fascist, but aren't according to certain definitions. Mdw0 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess we differ -- you will accept stuff which is not fascist in an article about fascism, whilst I would keep the article to the groups which are pretty much accepted to be fascist. The falangists were in Fascism -- the Francoists were not - and a lot of the Franco stuff has been removed since then.  Shakll we see how others feel? It does not seem that this is a matter of highest importance? Collect (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So when Franco did the Nazi salute while standing next to Hitler, he was just kidding, eh? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Nazi salute" was essentially the same salute that kids in the USA used for the Pledge of Allegiance then as well . That is one of the Josh Billings problems.    Collect (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Those kids look Japanese. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 100% American -- and the "Nazi salute."  Mussolini had more of a right to it han Hitler did -- it was the ancient gladiatorial salue "Hail Caesar, We who are about to die salute you."  The British Navy did not use it because it took too much room, I suppose.  Interesting stuff.  Collect (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hitler gave a lot of things a bad name. Look what he did for the swastika, for example, which was considered a good luck symbol. If he had made the rabbit's foot the national symbol, that would have ruined the rabbit's foot as a symbol of good luck. Although, in retrospect, having a rabbit's foot as a national symbol might not have struck the right note of terror. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * MP and the HG -- recall? Coupled with the Holy Hand Grenade -- some combination to strike fear into enemies! Collect (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you might bring that up. Had Hitler known about it, he might have used it. I'm picturing a rabbit with Hitler's hairdo and mustache. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans and such
I've characterized your ideology as "conservative" in this comment. If I've got that wrong and/or if my premise is incorrect, feel free to correct it. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Post on my Talk page if you have any other questions "
Hi, thanks very much for your kind offer (its at the bottom of the Fascism talk page). It concerns my very next post after that one. It's rather a delicate matter, I'm afraid. Please have a look at the bottom of the talk page of Medical Cannabis, firstly to assess the legal matter I mentioned at the very end of that page, especially after I inadvertently mentioned it in black and white. But more importantly I would be interested to hear an opinion from a Wikipedian of demonstrably high intellect (ie yourself, no flattery intended) about who was to blame for the trouble I found myself in there. Being totally unaccustomed in my normal (or abnormal) daily life to sudden, contemptuous accusations of fraud coming from complete strangers, I was extremely shocked and upset and taken off guard when precisely that occurred. I fear, however, that I may have flown off the handle somewhat and possibly overreacted : what interests me, if you have the time or inclination to consider it, is to what extent, in your opinion (which I am inclined to respect, as I said) this is the case. Please do bear in mind that my first reaction was to never darken this entire enterprise again, having never, to my recollection, been insulted like that before by anyone other than women with whom I was emotionally involved at the time. If this matter is too trifling to merit a response, I perfectly understand. But, it would be interesting to see your thoughts on the subject. Thanks and sorry for the length of this paragraph. Yours, Zombie president (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Er, please disregard the above- the guy I thought I'd upset turns out not to be. Thanks anyway Zombie president (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No sweat. You wandered into a hornet's nest there, and one person made an assumption that you were the same person who had been there recently (likely with similar views). This is a common sort of behavior -- both for people who are pushing one POV with "single purpose accounts" and for those who are upset who then see every new face as a potential SPA. I have, moreover, stated there that I believe you to be a new user and not an SPA. Does that help? Collect (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah thanks but I think I've kind of gone off the whole idea of Wikipedia, to be honest. Thanks again.Zombie president (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. Collect (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing policy draft
Hi, I drafted a restructuring of the Editing Policy (User:Rd232/EPmock), following a discussion you were involved in at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy. Pls comment there. cheers, Rd232 talk 17:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing of the article Fascism and editing on Wikipedia in general
I appreciate your openness and constructive criticism of the article Fascism. My only concern is that you are getting into too many unconstructive arguments with the user Four Deuces. Bear in mind that in this world there will always be someone who is diametrically opposed to your ideas and looks down on what you are doing. The problem is that if they aren't willing to listen to you, there is no point in convincing them I have got into such snarly confrontations with some users, such as one user named Imbris and a user named SlamDiego. The confrontations were pointless and futile. My advice to you is this: don't get lured into an aggressive argument with someone who is constantly putting down what you are doing, you will not be able to convince them of anything. As bad as it may seem to say, the best thing to do is ignore them if they have nothing constructive to say as their criticism. I was once tempted to disprove a very flawed point that was added in the talk page that argued that there was such a thing as "Red Fascism" under Stalin, this is a pejorative use, as fascists are anti-communist, but I resisted getting into the argument knowing that it would lead nowhere. I will be honest in saying that I disagree with some of your perceptions about left-wing fascism, I see fascism as a sort of bizarre fusion of reactionary nationalist and leftist nationalist forces that are socially right-wing (i.e. believe in social hierarchy and social competition rather than egalitarianism which is socially left-wing) while being economically centrist or are centre-left (i.e. protection of private property, the class system, and allowance of private enterprise while promoting social welfare and government intervention into the economy). However, unless I can concretely disprove the argument with facts to show that it has no basis, I have no ability to disprove it. I suggest that you be cautious with where you step, you can argue with an irrational person until you are blue in the face, it achieves nothing and is a waste of time. If you discuss with a rational person like myself, I will point out flaws in your points but I will not put you down at every turn. Wikipedia can be a very bad experience if you argue with every person you may disagree with you, but it can be a very good experience if you learn to be constructive, learn that you may be mistakened, and take pride in learning from your mistakes or flawed assumptions and in the process learn something. To be honest, probably all that we have written on Wikipedia will eventually be for nothing as it will be either slowly bitten away by critics or that Wikipedia will cease to exist in the future, but I value the learning process of it. I hope that you look at Wikipedia from this point-of-view from now on. Winning every argument may be a sign of cleverness but not wisdom, losing many arguments but being able to learn from the mistakes and not holding a grudge against those who rationally and logically disproved your points is wisdom. I have lost many arguments, but in the long-run I actually enjoy losing them because I learn from my mistakes, I hope you will do this too from this point on.--R-41 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice -- I tend to be too quick to find errors  rather than just let them slide. TFD moreover seems to be unwilling to read all the stuff out there ... again, thanks. Collect (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I'm a conservative, so I'll just conserve space and use previous topic. In what ways are you unsatisfied with the article Fascism? Soxwon (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Had you seen it at the outset, you would understand just how bad a catch-all it was at its worst. I'd like it to give a solid explanation of what "Fascism" is, and what it encompasses. It is a lot closer now than it has been in the past. There are, however, some who feel that it should include anything anyone ever called "fascist" - which made for a fairly horrid article .  At one point it hit about 146K in size -- we got it down to 124K, and it is now back up to 130K.  I would suggest that material which ends up being "all the fascists disagree on this"  may be interesting, but ultimately does not belong in the article. OTOH, I had a hard time showing that trying to give full histories of every dictator in the article was not going to help.  BTW, I am not particularly a political conservative, I am, however, an "encyclopedia conservative" in how I view articles. I would allow almost anything in userspace, and then be fairly caution in mainspace on WP.  Collect (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

e
 * Well, one of the reasons I suggested making an other category is that we can keep things reasonable by insisting on keeping only the most important so the section doesn't become gigantic. Soxwon (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the comments, you would discover an insatiable appetite for enlargement of the article .  Collect (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but WP:UNDUE states that each item is to get what it's worth. I think that the original (Italian) and some of the MAJOR movements should coverage, the rest maybe blurbs. Soxwon (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * SHORT blurbs, in fact. Expect resistance.  Think of Borgs.   See comments where an editor expects detailed demographics of Mussolini's supporters.  Collect (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schlund
The decision to delete the article Dan Schlund is now being reviewed. You have been sent this message because you have previously been involved in the AfD discussion(s) concerning this article. If you are interested in the review discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3. Thank you. Esasus (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop using my talk page to argue with User:The Four Deuces
As said in the headline, please stop using my talk page to argue with User:The Four Deuces over points on fascism, I consider that to be very disrespectful.--R-41 (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa -- I am used to folks discussing anything over here, and did not consider your position would differ. You might ask TFD not to discuss me on your page in such a case, I would hope. Collect (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Ferrylodge (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Recognition
I'm impressed that you kept things civil on the mediation page recently. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your tendentious editing on Drudge Report
I want to ask you nicely to stop doing what you are doing on Drudge Report. I have tried to make that page as informative as possible. You may think I am a liberal and it offends your conservatism, to see me editing the page, and you have accused me of OWN issues, but if you look closely you'll see I actually welcome any reasonable additions to the page (including yours), even if it tends a little towards the hagiographic as regards Mr Drudge. But I've noticed some worrying things about you, and it must be deliberate because you know how wikipedia works. For example, in the last two days you have waited for me to arrive for my daily editing/vandalism removal session, then you pounce, trying to out-edit me and create numerous edit conflicts. It's clearly there in the logs for all to see. It's dirty pool, so stop it. I hope you have no admin ambitions, because I shall monitor your machinations and ambitions on wp and make sure everyone is apprised of your disruptive behaviour if this continues. ► RATEL ◄ 16:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't actually even like Drudge. I do, however, feel that it is those people who most need to be protected from those who pile on every controversy they can find, who misrepresent cites (a 20% increase in viewership is claimed to be a 20% decrese with a straight face?) and so forth.  I am what is called a northeast liberal -- and I find claims that adding quotes opposing Drudge are "hagiographic" to be sufficiently off the wall as to comment me to suggest that you, in fact, not post on this page. By the way, I outranked admins and had the equivalent of well over a hundred working for me at one time, so I definitely have no ambitions to become one.   By the way, try using a "watchlist" as it means I do not lurk in wait for your edits at all. I currently folow several hundred articles. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The 20% thing was a genuine error, ok? I'll admit that. I misread it. I'm not sure what your sentence containing the word hagiographic means above; it does not parse for me. I use a watchlist religiously and also monitor a long list of pages. And btw if some article appeared that said the DR was doing incredibly well and the traffic had increased 300%, I'd be the first person to insert it, I assure you. Notice that I welcomed your balancing quote by Ben Shapiro, because it improves the page. I won't comment on your claimed history of being Wikipedia Master of the Universe. ► RATEL ◄ 00:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As it was not on WP, the comment is unneeded. Collect (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

False 3RR warning
You've violated the 3 revert rule. I suggest you revert back. Introman (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding the OR tag is not a revert -- it affects not a single one of your edits. Try again someday, but I would suggest that your acts on multiple articles approaching vandalism are of concern. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the Fascism article. I'll be happy to report you. Introman (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As I am not endeavoring to violate any rules, and trust you are not either, let's not worry too much. have you dicided that editors are not losers yet? <g> Collect (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice that you continually post comments after mine, often minutes after I have posted them. In every case your comments are opposed to mine, even if that means your taking inconsistent positions.  While I understand this may be coincidental, and hope it is, I do not think that this is a useful use of your time or helpful to the project and would appreciate if you stopped following me, if in fact that is what you are doing.  Before you argue about that, please note that there is a record of all postings.  The Four Deuces (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I now have several hundred pages on my watchlist (about seven hundred including talk pages) . Do you use yours? It has absolutely nothing to do with following you at all -- but when I am online I keep refreshing the watchlist every few minutes pretty much automatically.  It is a really useful feature -- and saves a lot of time for people. Thanks! Collect (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)