User talk:Collect/archive9

Hi Collect!
I saw your note to Fcreid's page and decided to weigh in my opinion at WP:Areas for reform, since I've been thinking about some of this stuff for quite a while. (I must still have his page on my watchlist, I guess.)

I must be a collector too, I suppose. I'd never really thought of it before. I have plenty of swords of all kinds and not a practical use for a one of them, but would gladly accept ten more if someone'd give 'em to me. I don't know if I'll ever buy any more, as my Japanese katana cost more than my car ... but I'd like to.

I just wanted to say thanks for sticking around the Palin article when so many others seem to have left. Zaereth (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Letting others "win" by driving off good editors seems not in my nature.  If anyone tries forcing me off again, I shall get everyone notified who really knows what is happening, for sure.  Collect (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Reform
Hey, thanks for the encouragement, and I want to thank you too for being the first one (after me) to "kick it off." I want to prove that a relatively unregulated community is cabable of addressing the major issues it faces.

I agree with you co9mpletely that Jimbo should not be an issue. Did you know anyway that there is another page on "governance" that is explicitly discussing Jimbo's role? We do not need to duplicate them.

I actually wrote in the general principles that sections that attract no discussion could be ended after a reasonable period. There are frankly three sections that I feel very strongly should stay up for a longer time: 5, 7, 8 and 9. 5 and 7 really get to the heart of the "Policy Council" which would have been a new committee and which may well have recommended more new committees to improve Wikipedia "governance." As you know from my comments at the Policy Council RfC, I am opposed to this. But I still believe that this area for reform has to stay up longer. Perhaps members of the policy council are avoiding this page because it is associated with me. But there clearly are people who believe we need more governance and more commitees and they ought to have a space to discuss it. For the same reason, I think we need to keep #6 and 7 up. These two would provide people with a space to discuss real reform of the power structure that currently exists (not Jimbo, I am talking about other offices and committees). I think people are shying away from this because, in the wake of the RfC, they fear stirring up more conflict and dissention. So I think with these three, we should give people more time. Please note that many people who were very vocal at the RfC have not commented here. So9me may do so out of antagonism to me, but if this page is really taking a life of its own, people may see it is not about me and may participate. It is important for the legitimacy of the page that people with whom I have disagreed in the past feel comfortable coming here, making arguments, proposing policies. Important for the health of Wikipedia too, I think.

My aim was to give people a space for talk that could lead to practical proposals  either to alter existing policies (or guidelines) or to create new ones. Once proposals had been discussed, people could "leave" the reform project page and create a page to propose a new policy with room for people to vote, and the community could decide on whetehr it is a good idea or not. I think therefore that the page needs someone with the role of "shepherd," someone who can ask people "do you want to propose a policy?" and nudge them to the next section, or ask people to move the discussion along to the point where people are discussing practical implications. Since I created the page, I do not want to be the shepherd. If I take on any more roles people might think I have too much influence which I definitely do not want. I am not trying to get you to act as shepherd, although you might want to consider it. If you can know anyone else who, in different conflicts or on policy page discussions was good at getting people to focus on the practical (without being partisan) maybe you could encourage them to participate in the project page in that unofficial role?

I think one possibility I did not consider was to make each "area of reform" its own page, lined to an "areas for reform" category page. I guess I did not anticipate just how much discussion one question could attract. Or maybe I was hoping that little discussion would be needed before people came up with policy ideas. Your thoughts? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can get a lot more discussion going -- I just would not want this to be the "annual WP debate on reform" nor do I think the fact that the foundation is going to do something (which has also been true for a long time) should short-circuit this. I once had to oversee four thousand messages a day  so this is a piece of cake.
 * I definitely know about the other pages currently under discussion -- I have commented in most of them now. What I find interesting is that the vituperation found in some has so far managed not to find this page.
 * I wonder about the "committee" issue - with the belief that some admins' and some editors' memories are long, a lot may be loath to discuss it here.   Or did you not feel that any future interactions may be shaped by words written now?
 * For a shepherd ... certainly not anyone who has baggage, and preferably one who has not weighed in with opinions. Someone who can ask questions -- which is how threads really take on a life.  And someone who has no ill-will to anyone being perceived.   Kirill Lokshin or Newyorkbrad  definitely have credibility if either could be talked into the role.   And Baseball Bugs could be counted on to ask serious questions - might be a good role for him.
 * As for dividing the page - I would suggest that the subsections be labelled more clearly -- on a Watchlist I have to search for the new posts. The page is certainly not long yet by talkpage standards -- time enough to worry about subpages later. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

reform
Thanks for taking the initiative. I really thoght others out there cared about eforming Wikipedia's govenance yet no one has really taken up questions 4-9. If you know others who care about governance here, specifically, do let thm know about the project! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Any opinion on my radical suggestions? Collect (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Asking for your thoughts
Hello, Collect. I replied to your comment at Articles for deletion/Soap Opera "supercouples". Taking into consideration what you stated about the Supercouple article, I was wondering if you would not mind lending some suggestions on the talk page of that article about what you feel it needs work on. I have been fixing up that article since 2007 now, with additional words of wisdom from AniMate, and currently cannot see any true original research (OR) in it. I have gathered and read up on more academic stuff which discusses what  supercouples are and criticism of them, soap opera supercouples in particular, and am planning on adding that to the article. I would appreciate your thoughts on improvements about this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose my biggest problem is that no concrete definition is offered -- making it very difficult to figure out precisely whether any given couple is a "super couple."  Given that the term is almost exclusively used oin soap opera fan stuff,  I am unsure that it intrinsically is notable.  Google books seems to show it used in a number of disparate ways indeed, but quite frequently in the sense of two-income couples, rather than in the sense used in soap operas.  Can you give a cite for a specific simple definition possibly? Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The essay in this book goes into detail about soap opera supercouples, but in a way that is more criticism than anything (which I do intend to add part of to the Supercouple article soon). And then there is also one of the most used references in the Supercouple article - this one - from Soap Opera Digest. I have other articles and such which mention how the term expanded to prime time and other genres and that, regarding fictional couples, it simply means a popular couple who is very well-known/praised within their medium, and especially one that has extended beyond it.


 * I get what you mean about the term mainly applying to soap opera couples. That was one of my main problems in writing the other sections (I am going to trim the Criticism section of Video game really soon). But the term is now very much used for celebrity supercouples as well. It is almost like two different definitions apply for each. For soap opera supercouples, the term means very popular couples have either taken over the soap opera medium where they are recognized as supercouples by most fans and critics, or expanded beyond the soap opera medium due to popularity (such as non-soap opera press; getting recognized by Entertainment Weekly and such), or both. Celebrity supercouples? Yep, I am not sure how to define them, except to point to couples such as the ones named in the Celebrity section of the Supercouple article - TomKat, Brangelina, etc. Those two articles are likely to get deleted one day, by the way, LOL (as you can surely guess). I just go by whatever valid sources I can use describing celebrity supercouples. We know that regarding both fiction and real-life couples, a supercouple is a combination of being very popular and fans/media seemingly being obsessed with the couple. The term is notable, I must state, considering the academic essays/studies about it and how it all started with Luke Spencer and Laura Webber; I just have to go to a good library to get more about it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will rewrite a little of the article, such as the Definition section, as best I can with the sources I have...and then come back and ask you what you think about the changes if you do not mind. If you feel that I am being a bother, just let me know that, too, of course, LOL. I know that we sometimes do not want to be bothered because we have other things to attend to or whatever the reason. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. The aim is to make a genuine encyclopedia, after all. Collect (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is my newest version of the article. The changes are more significant than they are little; I realize that what a supercouple is may still not be as clear cut as you would like, but that is more due to their being different elements for the term and applying the term being somewhat subjective. However, I feel that the supercouple concepts for fiction and celebrity comes across clear enough (and clearer than before). I cannot figure out how to cut down on the Criticism section of Video game without cutting out important detail. Instead, I will just add additional references to that section, since it is currently going on a single source, unlike its main section. And, of course...I will continue to improve this article as long as I am still here at Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking shape for sure ... the best cites would be ones which use the term "supercouple" for sure. Collect (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, thanks. I had to edit the Definition section again due to having forgotten that supercouples are sometimes platonic (and had to further tweak other parts of the article, as seen in that link), but it has turned out okay. As said, I will continue to work on the article. Thank you for all your help. Any other advice or criticism you can add, feel free to do so (of course). Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted offending material as requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)
Have deleted offending material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gigs (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

MedCabal Case
Hello! I have taken a mediation cabal case that has listed you as a party to a content dispute. Before we can proceed to a process of discussion and mediation, I need each party's confirmation that they are willing to proceed with the process to find a solution to end this problem.

Please indicate this approval, if given, on both my talk page and the case page that is linked above.

Cheers! -Reubzz (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

PR
Hi Collect, you left a comment a few days ago at the Prem Rawat talk page, commenting on my and Will's proposals to add some information. Could you explain what you meant? I wasn't really sure how much you thought would be sensible to add. (I'd wanted to add more from a source, Will less from the same source, and we were trying to meet in the middle somewhere.) Cheers, -- JN 466  00:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gladio
So what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe (talk • contribs) 19:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No relevance at all to the topic at hand. Collect (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism
Your comment at NOR is constructive. I think it would be better if, instead of providing a link to it, you actually posted the full comment on the judaism talk page. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am avoiding a person who appears to be trying to "out" me, who has said he is tracking every edit I make. Collect (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

deletion/morozov
fyi two more sources credit Morozov as an "expert": Bloomberg and Radio Free Europe while The Economist called Morozov a "genius". I tried to point that out on the discussion page for the subject but since I don't have an account on Wikipedia it was deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.133.87 (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  It is out of my hands what happens now to be sure (and I am pretty sure I disagree with him on a lot of stuff -- but that should have no bearing on his notability).   Collect (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Daily Heil/Daily Wail/Daily Fail/Daily Propaganda
I looked up the creators of these redirects per your suggestion. Two of the editors are inactive and the one who isn't created the redirect over a year ago and hasn't created anything questionable since. My check did reveal one other RFD-able redirect by one of the inactive editors - Paultard, which hits the daily double as offensive to both Ron Paul supporters and the mentally challenged. I nominated it. --NellieBly (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing it out - I never thought to check, and I should have. Thanks again! --NellieBly (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

invitation
\{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="background-color:#E2E7FF" !  Hello, Collect. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join <<  and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * }

I'm curious...
I'd be curious to see what you think of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezero/Secret Page. I must admit that I was surprised to see that you haven't commented on it yet, as I keep seeing you sig on most of the MfDs that I've seen lately! --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd Mfd?
I saw your comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KPS4Parents and before I even had a chance to see what was on the page in question, it was deleted under CSD#G11. It seems suspicious that in under an hour the page was deleted, do you mind explaining what all was on the page and if this may warrant a deletion review? Thanks - Marcusmax ( speak ) 01:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears to have been a page describing a 401(c)3 non-profit group. It was not "spam" (which I interpret to mean multiple occurence of a blatant commercial message). WP:SPAM was clearly not applicable to this userspace example.  One page, non-commercial, made it to MfD in precisely one minute, and closed by one who !voted delete as opposed to an uninvolved person.   I suggested that the person be told the username was not acceptable, and that the content be move to his new userspace, but the delete was extremely quick.   Collect (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for butting in--I agree, that was a little too quick. Was it Triplestop's judgment that this was spam that sealed the deal? I think both the nominator and the closing administrator were much too quick on the draw. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed, there is no doubt his username was in violation of WP:UN but as I've been advocating for some time now, a work page is a work page even if it is not well sourced. It would have been better, if the user was warned first instead of blocked and have their page deleted simultaneously. I'm thinking deletion review? - Marcusmax ( speak ) 01:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol Drmies I run into you everywhere, this is very confusing to me as you know I am a very policy oriented person and this is the 3rd or 4th mfd to close quickly and under the wrong WP:CSD criteria. In this case it is time to get into contact Triplestop or go to DRV. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 02:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Deletion review is usually an exercise in futility -- as long as an admin quotes a g-number, the presumption is that the deletion was proper. The name is a clear problem, but it was not WP:SPAM by any stretch. And you will find me often saying that a few words with a new user are better than simply pointing fingers at them. WP is already losing editors at a great rate - keeping new ones from even starting is not wise. In my opinion, of course. Collect (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile the user is now blocked -- meaning this is a clear case of not only biting a new user, but doing our best to pour salt in the wound. Collect (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I understand your viewpoint but I never even had a chance to read the userpage and I know something is up, and Drmies also shared this view, it is quite possible many will also at DRV. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 02:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that this deletion was in violation of WP:DPR I quote, "Non-administrators should not close "delete" decisions at all, as they lack the technical ability to actually delete pages." and in this case because one did they must, "where an administrator has deleted a page but forgotten to close the discussion, his or her name and deletion summary should be included in the closing rationale." - Marcusmax ( speak ) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of points. First, the definition of spam includes "public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." Given the username, it was pretty clear that the intent was to "tell readers how great something is." Probably the block message should have been, rather than spam-only, a username block. The horse may be out, but the barn door is fixed now—the block message has been changed (the block was soft all along).
 * Second, in my comment at the MfD, I indicated that the speedy delete was in process at that point. To that end, the non-admin close was just the clerical result of the action I had already taken. I had not forgotten to close the deletion; it was closed before I looped back to close it.
 * If I had it to do over again, I might have tagged the article and seen how the user replied. Based on experience, they usually just remove the tag and keep on editing the page. I do think the end result would be the same: page deleted, user soft blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Areas for Reform states that treatment of new editors is a major issue. As for "promoting" a non-profit organization on a user page -- if that is WP:SPAM, I am amazed.   There are actual articles on non-profits which should be deleted then.  And, of course, all personal c.v.s in userspace are then spam.    As I choose to use the logical position -- that spam refers to commercial exploitation of WP, this userpage can not be spam.  Moree than five hundred userpages promote the "Red Cross."  More than two thousand refer to a "non-profit."  More than four hundred refer to "my company" or "our company."  And this non-profit was essentially told "go away and never come back" with a total of eight minutes.  A new record. Collect (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:UP lists that definition as an "example" not policy although I never saw the content myself so I could not say if it was or was not. I see issues with WP:BITE, only a few minutes after creating the page they had it deleted and were blocked simultaneously with limited warning, advice or guidance. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 03:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

<--Every time I consider placing a speedy template somewhere, I think of WP:NEWT. Reading those adventures actually made me much more aware of how bitey we sometimes are, and I would have liked to have seen this particular process handled more slowly. No one else, for instance, got the opportunity to help this user out. BTW Marcus, in regards to your earlier remark, I'm just stalking you. ;) Drmies (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have posed a question on Wikipedia Talk:SPAM (the guideline talk page) concerning non-profits and spam. Collect (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have requested the page be userfied: User:Ikip/User:KPS4Parents or emailed to me so I can see the page myself. Interesting case. Ikip (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that a non-profit userpage which makes no "commercial" statements, qualifies as "spam"? Anyone feel that way? Collect (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How can a non-profit organization be "commercial" as CSD#G12 focuses on, there obviously was a COI but a new user doesn't know any better. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 22:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the WP:SPAM talk page, the argument is made that anything which in any way "promotes" an organization is automatically spam. Unless and until the view on that page is altered, this is a non-win case. Near as I can tell, though, every single mention of an organization on WP may be deletable speedily as spam .   And WP is losing new editors at an amazing rate. Collect (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's sad we are losing editors at such an alarming rate, and things like give you a hint as to why. I hope Ikip gets a copy of that page because I definitely want to see what is on it, as long as the person is not like this example example, "KPS4Parents is my organization in Camarillo, California and we are good at what we do, visit us at KPS4Parents.com for more info" then I don't see how it is promoting an organization. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 22:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am prepared to go to DRV right now if you guys think we should? We can sit here and chat all day but if we don't make a stand then this opportunity will quickly slip away. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 00:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I requested the page here: User_talk:Bigtimepeace

Gentlemen, it often doesn't matter what the policy says, it matters who has the largest network of friends. In addition, DRV tends to attract a much higher ratio of editors who support deletion than regular pages. Ikip (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't then, I trust your opinion 100% Ikip. Hopefully the page gets userfied! - Marcusmax ( speak ) 03:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've userfied the material per Ikip's request, see User:Ikip/User:KPS4Parents. Based on a quick Google News search I highly doubt this group is notable enough for an article, but it won't do any harm to work on it userspace if someone wants to. The person who nominated the user page for MfD and the admin who deleted were far, far too quick to bite a new editor in my view. When this kind of thing happens, leave a note for the user first and discuss the issue with them. It doesn't waste the time of other editors like an MfD does, and maybe you will be able to explain how editing on Wikipedia works such that they contribute positively. Given the rapid succession of unfriendly warning, deletion of user page, block of account, additional unfriendly warning, one would not be surprised if the person who created User:KPS4Parents is now done with Wikipedia. Maybe they were just here to promote a non-notable org, but then again maybe the did want to contribute and were starting with what they knew. It genuinely pains me to see the operator of a brand new account treated in this fashion, regardless of the viability of the material they are trying to include. We need to be encouraging new editors, not showing them the door five minutes after their first edit and leaving it there simply because the don't understand our policies. The extra time it takes to try to explain how things work to a new editor, even if it ends up with no results because they are not here in good faith, is well worth it in the end. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with bigtimepeace, this organization needs more sources to avoid deletion:
 * User_talk:Ikip/User:KPS4Parents
 * This is all I found.
 * I would suggest emailing the organization asking for news articles. They would know better than anyone.
 * if you guys would like this article in your user space, you are welcome to move it. [simply move it to User:Collect/User:KPS4Parents, for example] Otherwise I will eventually delete it.
 * Thanks bigtimepeace! Ikip (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Collect, if you object to cases like this then please see Usernames for administrator attention where hundreds of these cases are processed rountinely. See also Category:Wikipedians_who_are_indefinitely_blocked_for_promotional_user_names, which is populated by much the same cases like this.  Triplestop  x3  23:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am quite concerned by some of the latest newspaper articles on WP, and the fact that we can make some of the iffiest cases be handled differently, to be sure.  Collect (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that many people think that they can add a page for themselves by posting it under a userpage using an account that represents the company, which is problematic for many reasons. Most of these people don't bother to read the stuff we have written for them nor do they pay attention to that orange bar at the top of the screen. I dare say that some of them are also probably spam bots. There isn't much we can do about this, however all messages used clearly tell the user what they can do next.  Triplestop  x3  23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One problem is that new users are not really given sufficiently clear instructions that they should not use anything other than a vanilla username. No idea if many bots are used -- there are so many "alternate personas" on WP it is not funny.  I think we should be careful that we do not simply toss the baby out with the bathwater. WP needs as many new editors as it can get.  And you should note that I generally feel templates are not as good as personal messages . Collect (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism
You created sections on the talk page to facilitate discussion. I ask you to remove them. In the section above, I provide my general views on the situation including why I don't think what you did was helpful. Collect, I know that what you did was in good faith, and under other circumstances would in fact be very constructive. Right now I think people on the talk page are wrangling with two specific conflicts, and they are already in separate sections, and we should just give people time - in both sections - to work out what they want. In these cases, i think conflict perdures because only two people care, if more people who watch the article weighed in i bet a consensu sone way or another would emerge. Unless more people get involved I personally woulod say that there is not enough weight to support a change. Anyway, i explained my reasoning in the section above the subsections you created. Do whatever you think best. read what I wrote there and if you agree, remove the subsections you created, if you think I am wrong, leave the subsections you created. All i can ask you is to consider my reasoning and then act as you see best. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am trying to avoid formal mediation as much as possible by making sure we know precisely where the disagreements are first. The usual course is, indeed, to try separating things out.  At this point, it looks like the sections are working for their intended purpose. If we can iron out one issue at a time this way, we will be well ahead of the game. If it does not work, we are no worse off than we were with the free-form discussions which have gne on. Will you bear with me for a couple of days, please? Collect (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI
I added a number of third party RS refs today to the Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis) article (the subject of the AfD that you've participated in). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Of Interest?
Check out my new subpage, User:Marcusmax/Newbie Treatment at mfd and feel free to add information at anytime. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 19:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

William Timmons addition reverted
I took undid your addition, as I didn't understand how to fix it; please note that in English grammar, "which" always refers to the immediately preceding noun phrase, so I'm pretty sure you left it not meaning what you intended. Maybe you can point out what the source says about resolutions and we can find a better way to phrase it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please undo your undoing. My mom was a Latin teacher, and the usage was correct.  The source makes clear that there was no attempt by Timmons to evade the resolutions.  If you prefer your own grammar "I took undid" then use it, but restore the meaning of the addition. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

All scientists are sceptics
Well said! Being a sceptic to scientist is a bit like being called a "fitness freak" to a footballer or a "fashion conscious" to a model. It is the very nature of a scientist to be a sceptic, and it just shows how little those who decry the sceptics know of science that they think it is a label any real scientists would not wear with pride! 88.109.63.241 (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was trained as a scientist (Physics) and the whole idea is that where no one is a sceptic, no one will ever discover anything new. Collect (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

MfD
I think the comment you left here indicates you think I made a bad faith nomination. This conversation shows the lengths I went to in order to avoid having to do an MfD. I ask you to reconsider your words in light of this information, and assume good faith on my part. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it was a good faith nom, but one which is a "no win" nom. Collect (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All I want is for the user to slightly alter the statement so that it doesn't disparage fellow editors. An MfD process, however doomed to failure, will at least attract a few more eyeballs from editors who might be able to persuade the user to tweak that text. If the text is changed, I'd be happy to support a snowball close as keep. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note the change made. I do feel that this userpage is better left untouched than given notoriety. Collect (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarifying comment. Totally respect your opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

BIAW
Please see the article's talk section. kgrr talk 01:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)