Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Collect's Law

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Userfy. Two widely-held concerns emerged from the discussion below: firstly, that the material contained in the essay was not suitable for project space, and secondly that some editors have been demonstrating ownership issues with it. Consequently, the page is moved to User:Collect/Collect's Law. Given the community's concern about suitability for project space, no redirect will be left; there are only a dozen or so incoming links, and those will be fixed. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   16:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Collect's Law


Eponymously named essay not appropriate for mainspace, should be userfied Nobody Ent 17:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy per nom. GiantSnowman 17:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy, personal essay tuned for personal rather than general use. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ...Including Delete regarding the mainspace link. That is, move the page but do not leave a redirect. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Was noted on UT:Jimbo Wales etc. The essay also contains comments by others, and hence is not the product of a single user - though the use of an exact quote from a number of pages is present in it.  And it is relevant in general to Wikipedia.   As for "not appropriate for mainspace" when an essay is directly related to Wikipedia itself, it seems that calling it "inappropriate" is in itself inapt.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy Collect says that this law should be treated in the same way as Godwin's law and cannot be edited. If that is the case it should be an article not an essay and of course sources would be required.  I notice that Collect uses this essay and his other essay, WP:KNOW, to insult other editors, rather than discussing the merits of their arguments.  TFD (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Kindly deal with what I say and not with what you assert. The quote is a quote. We do not alter quotes.  There  is, moreover, a section on the essay page for comments - which is where differences of opinion can be worked on, but altering a direct quote is not something which is supported by any policy or guideline in any space.  We also do not "edit" the US Constitution if it is quoted - nor do I alter quotes from "The Four Deuces."  Cheers.  As for your personal attack here -- MfD is not the place for such incivility.  Collect (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment If this essay is not appropriate for main space, can someone explain the reason(s) why? Just saying it is inappropriate doesn't pass muster as an argument. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: needs some formatting work, but there's a long precedent for such things. WP:TenPoundHammer's Law for example.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference with that case is that TenPoundHammer created it in userspace, and moved it into mainspace 2.5 months later with edit summary "This is cited often enough that it can probably be moved out of userspace". Besides which, has WP:OTHERSTUFF been deprecated?? Rd232 talk 18:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (i) it's bad to name essays after people. If other people do it and it sticks, so be it - but to do it yourself is vanity of the highest order. And it's not helpful, because it means the title isn't descriptive at all. (ii) the way in which this essay is formulated around a quote which cannot be changed means it is different from all other essays, since it is in its essence uneditable. It should not need any further explanation that this is inappropriate for mainspace. Rd232 talk 18:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I can try to explain. Firstly, Wikipedia prohibits page ownership: everyone can modify the text you enter. However, this page intrinsically implies Collect's ownership. Indeed, Colect's argument is "This is a quote from me, and you cannot modify it". That is a typical ownership. Moreover, Collect modifies contributions of others in such a way that he is acting as a mediator. He signs his contributions, which is totally unacceptable in the main space, because Wikipedia has no authorship. In other words, there are severe and intrinsic issues with this page, which ran be resolved only by userfying it.


 * Meanwhile, I found that WP:TenPoundHammer's Law was created as a humorous essay . i think that may be an alternative solution: remove signatures, Collect's editorialising, and add the "humor" template. If that will be done, the essay can stay in main space.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And I submit that altering what is identified as a quote is improper per se but that your added opinions are absolutely welcomed on the essay page itself - which is a rational position to take. Else an edit might change it to be "Collect said that 'all editors are purple' " which is not a rational argument, wouldn't you agreee?  Cheers.  BTW, the position is not "humor" but you are welcome to see if consensus abides by your opinion thereon.  Collect (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering the content of the page we're discussing, I'm quite surprised that Collect said "cheers." Collect, are you cheerless? Ego White Tray (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am far from "cheerless" though I suspect the specific editor who added that non-helpful edit in this "game" is likely in that category . Collect (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Policy states that Essays can be the opinion or advice of a single editor, and if that opinion is expressed in the form of a quote, then I don't think directly altering that quote is appropriate as it would change the essence of that opinion. Editors are free to edit elsewhere as appropriate. The only real criteria for userfying is that it is found to contradict widespread consensus, but I find myself agreeing with its essence. --Nug (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy Per Rd232, Nobody Ent, myself et al.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy. A page that starts with the words "After nearly four decades on-line, I posit the following..." clearly doesn't belong in mainspace. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Emended to fix your cavil. Collect (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is still clearly a personal opinion. In the unlikely event that it isn't userfied, I will propose that it be renamed as Collect's vague and unverifiable assertion accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Policy permits personal opinion. --Nug (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly: so we can have a discussion about whether my opinion regarding the correct title for the essay is more valid than Collect's... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The comment immediately after my initial post at BLP/N was "Seconded" by an editor here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Userfy or even delete. It's kinda cute, but, of course, lacks the authority it implicitly claims. It's not useful in Wikipedia space. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: The essay is now substantialy expanded to comply with all the concerns expressed. Other than those who hold the belief that "wrong essays" do not belong, of course.  Collect (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep/Userfy per consensus reached here. 140.247.141.146 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep; it's just another essay. Don't userfy unless the user request it, because essays are appropriate in WP:space.  Note that there's no evidence (at least that I've found) that this page or its contents have ever been in mainspace.  Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy - "One person quoting himself does not make for an appropriate wikipedia space essay." - SudoGhost's Law. This essay's title, theme, and how Collect edits the page all perfectly fit into the description of "User essays" at Wikipedia essays, suggesting that it belongs in the user space. - SudoGhost 21:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy Although I happen to completely agree with the principle expressed by this essay, it seems pretty clear that Collect desires that nobody change the wording of the "law" itself, instead insisting on the bizzarre convention of having a comments section for any proposed alterations. If you want to own the message, keep it in userspace. That is exactly why some of my own essays are in my userspace, because I did not want them altered into something genericized, I wanted them to reflect my position. There's nothing wrong with doing that so long as you do it in your own userspace and not community space. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Userfy . If kept in project space, the comments must go on the talk page, there must be no signatures in the body (quotes excepted), and User:Collect must strive to avoid even an appearance of WP:OWNership, preferably by using the talk page instead of editing directly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Consider it done. Collect (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid idea for study for the good of the project, and given Collect's promise to let go of OWNership.  There is room for this essay to grow.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userify - This seems to come down to whether the essay is a user essay ("User essays have a purpose similar to essays placed in the project namespace; however, they are often authored by only one person, and may represent a strictly personal viewpoint about Wikipedia or do not contain enough advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors to be considered a Wikipedia essay") (see Wikipedia essays) or a project namespace essay. Wikipedia:Collect's Law seems more of a strictly personal viewpoint about Wikipedia. There's multiple variables as to why a person posts the greatest amount of repeated verbiage to a discussion or why a person is most insistent that only specific sources which he favours know the facts. The conclusions drawn by the "Law" don't often flow from the premise enough to amount omore than a strictly personal viewpoint, likely only applying in narrow circumstances. Moreover, there isn't many What Links Here links. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy as one editor's opinion, who claims ownership of it (via the possessive use of the editor's username). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to userspace It's hard to believe this essay has managed to stay in mainspace this long. Nothing personal against Collect, who I think is a fine editor; it's just that we could wind up with thousands of these "laws". Collect's observation is, generally speaking, sound, but as BMK says, it's stil just one editor's opinion. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userify; it's pithy, it's generally true, and it's one editor's opinion which has no place in project space given that it's not open to tweaking like community essays should be. Editor's observations on Wikipedia are normally held in those editors' user spaces, I can see no compelling reason why this one should be an exception.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That you've expanded it doesn't change its nature, Collect. It remains your personal opinion and quote, just now in a more polished setting.  Is there a reason why you are not satisfied with keeping this in your user space like hundreds of others have done?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First - the only remaining cavil is that it has a name on it - which can be dealt with by a rename to "Perseveration" or the like - and the position is exactly that held not only by one editor but by reliable sources cited in the essay, thus that cavil fails.  As for claims that this is "slef-aggrandizement" - that is not even a reasonable !vote at MfD in the first place .  And note that it is absolutely "open to tweaking" which removes that cavil as well.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered my question. Why could that essay not simply exist in your user space like hundreds of editors have done for their own collected wisdom?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I concede Collect has significantly improved this essay as a result of severe criticism, however, his assertion that "the only remaining cavil is that it has a name on it - which can be dealt with by a rename" is wrong. Leaving minor issues aside, I see a major problem with the law itself: it implies that the size of text posted by some user is reversely proportional to the probability that he is right. That is simply not true. For example, many newcomers frequently ask essentially the same questions on the WWII talk page, and they are not satisfied with a brief advise to look through archives, and the FAQ page (created specifically for this purpose), considering this advise offensive. I have to repeatedly explain the same things again and again. Does it mean I am "least likely to be correct"? Of course, no. Consider the opposite example: a person who occasionally posts "I disagree. No consensus for that" without bothering to explain his position. Is he is most likely to be right? Not only he isn't, such behaviour contradicts to our policy, which prohibits to count voices in content disputes. I would say, Collect's corollary seems to be much more reasonable, and I fully support it. Moreover, I would say this corollary is most likely to be a law, not the initial Collect's law. If we replace the law with the corollary, I would be totally satisfied, and would withdraw my proposal to userfy this essay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy, not appropriate for mainspace, certainly not under that title. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Titles are not grounds for deletion - the place to ask for a change in title is on the essay talk page - not here. The question here is whether the essay (as it now stands) violates any policy or guidelines for Wikipedia, not whether folks agree or disagree with it.  In short - it now has appreciable added content, and as such meets all the requirements I have found.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy. This is an obvious attempt at self-aggrandizement.```Buster Seven   Talk  14:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficently neutral and without personal editorializing to be a outlier of the mainspace essays. Not a first tier essay, but sufficently useful that there is no harm in having this be a main space. Using the same comparison, WP:TPHL is annother essay written initially by a single editor, but contains the same observable truth. Hasteur (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In short - you disagree with the content of the essay, but not with any policy supporting removal from projectspace? Would whoever closes this please assign such opinions their proper weight for an MfD discussion?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking into account the overall tone of your responce, I find your "Cheers" hypocritical.
 * Regarding the policy, yes, the essay in its initial form was a blatant violation of our policy and guidelines: for example, users' signatures are not allowed in a main space. I concede that you have done a considerable work in attempts to address severe criticism of the essay, and I cannot rule out that, under some circumstances, the essay may be brought into accordance with the requirements of our policy. I think, this my statement (as well as my above post) is a demonstration of my good faith, and it does not deserve your acrimonious response (and even more acrimonious edit summary).
 * Meanwhile, anticipating a possibility that we may decide that the essay can stay (again, that cannot be completely ruled out now), I decided to comment on the essay proper. However, your aggressive responce is a demonstration that you haven't abandoned your attempts to claim ownership of this essay, so, my optimism was probably somewhat premature.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * userfy or delete - valueless William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename, else, Userfy. If this is another Wikipedian blogosphere-like essay, then userfy. If it's to be used to express an opinion about a current practice which happens in relation to policy (such as CON, in this case) then, I don't see why it can't exist in project space like other such essays. But the essay needs to be clearer on this if it is to be kept in project space. - jc37 06:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I propose Renaming to WP:Collected laws. There now seems to be four.  (Aren't there similar lists of cute asserted truisms?).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, User:Raul654/Raul's laws, for example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On further thought, I think WP:Collected laws should exist independently, and link to the various similar essays, which seem to exist in userspace, and projectspace. I think User:Collect should userfy his essay.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I propose Renaming to WP:Pompous Posturing. These are not truisms. They are ramblings. Valueless. They serve no purpose.```Buster Seven   Talk  09:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And when those opining to delete or userfy the essay are the one's who added the 'ramblings' , what ought one consider? I fear this is now becoming "gaming" to some of them, and ask anyone closing to so note. I would also note some of those are editors who have long vuewed themselves as my adversaries - including some who have repeatedly nominated or voted to delete my essays in the past, or who opined that they were like "Sam Spade" "investigating" me for "derogatory information" and not simply disinterested passers-by noting "pompous posturing" but might have an agenda here. And I would also suggest that when folks object to an essay that they ought not "add" stuff to the essay to make a "point" which is what has now occured. Collect (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sam Spade. That would be me. See []. (#Strangers in a Strange Land). Since Collect refuses to give me credit at his talk page and yet he posts my quote at the front door, I thought I might come to this venue for relief. I'm sure Collect will delete upon sight but that is to be expected. I do have an agenda...to reveal Collect for the provocatuer that he is. ```Buster Seven   Talk  13:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why in hell would I wish to delete your post indicating sp clearly your animus against me?  The fact that you routinely post about me on other's talk pages in a rather uncollegial manner is open for anyone to examine, and why should I exopect you, Writegeist et al, who pissed upon the essay by adding strange asides to it be any different than your other comments over the years?  I would suggest any closing admin discount all those !votes from those who think the proper way to get rid of an essay they "DONTLIKE" is to add trash to it.    Rewarding such gaming of the system is, in my honest opinion, toxic to Wikipedia.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Tsk.Tsk. No need to curse. The fact that I don't like you should have no bearing on counting my vote. I have approached you countless times overe four years with my hand extended in reconciliatory fashion. Each time you rejected it. I don't want to get rid of this essay. I want to get rid of you. If anything is toxic to Wikipedia it is you. ```Buster Seven   Talk  19:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: On the essay talk page I propose a rename to WP:Perseveration on article topics and suggest that, since that was the actual focus of the essay, that disinterested editors emend some of the "additions" to it. The rename, of sourse, is not supposed to be done while this discussion continues. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and revert the mess that is there now is not what Collect originally intended. It's OK for other editors to edit essays in the main WP space, but they shouldn't change the original intention, especially not in a way that makes it look worse during the MfD. Gigs (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The essay in its original form can't possibly have been intended seriously--another editor, one of our most intelligent, has remarked on what I would have thought was already obvious to even the most half-witted reader, namely the spurious premise of the original so-called law. So it was clearly an attempt at humour, perhaps with Charles Pooter in mind. Sadly, although the additions by others improve the piece by making it slightly funnier (not hard to do), they're not enough to redeem it: its substance remains valueless, as someone has already commented.  Writegeist (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding humor, you are not right. The author used the reference to this essay in a context of the very serious discussion, so I have serious reasons to suspect that this essay was conceived as a quite serious law. He did that at least twice, and in both cases the implication was quite clear. In addition, I proposed to add "humor" template to it (which, in my opinion, could help to preserve the essay in the main space), however, the author of the essay objected to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a wiki, and the default rule is that people can write essays and post them in mainspace if they want to. In my opinion, this should be subject to some common-sense exceptions: 1) If then essay is just too far substandard -- poorly written or poorly though out or whatever; 2) if the essay is too far anti-Wikipedia, e.g. "The Wikipedia sucks, don't use it" as opposed to just critical 3) maybe some other stuff, like if the essay is about a subject just too obscure to be of any real interest, or the material is covered better in another essay, or it is named confusingly (in which case just a rename might be in order), and so forth. This essay doesn't fail any of these to my mind and so it's OK. (FWIW I don't agree with it though, either in the original or later versions). Herostratus (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the impression I had some months ago, but the treatment of my WP:Just Edit The Friendly Article, even after I attempted to genericize it (because no one else wanted to edit) makes me think that this is not established practice. Certainly mine was intended to be, and I believe still would be, much more useful than Collect's, and indeed I still can and do go by it; it's only the talking about it that seems to be objected to. Wnt (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment FWIW I experienced something similar with my essay WP:HARDCORE. It was userfied (and restored), MfD'd, and then edited by a swarm of hostile editors to deliberately weaken it. I requested mediation which was declined, and the final upshot compromise was the the essay is basically OK but now contains a section "An alternative view" (this currently links to another page). I think this is kind of silly -- editors are always allowed to write essays refuting other essays and put links to them in the "See also" section, but to require an actual section rebutting an essay in the essay seems a bit odd, and I'd hate to see rebuttal sections in the body of WP:OTHERUSERS and so forth, but this is the de facto standard I guess. So perhaps the original editor and editors friendly to his purpose could be given their way (more or less) with the main body of the essay, and editors hostile to the thrust of the essay could be given their way with an "An alternative view" section? Would this help? Herostratus (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This (especially, the edit-summary) is a good demonstration that the essay we discuss has a great potential for article's ownership.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep No real reason has been given to delete this. The ownership issue doesn't make sense. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  20:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor names the essay after themselves and exhibits ownership of the essay. Even if you don't agree with it, I'd say the ownership issue makes sense, and a perfectly good reason has been given to move it to user space, being a single user's essay. - SudoGhost 22:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy Vanity pages don't belong in mainspace. Jtrainor (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It isnt a vanity page. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The name does suggest that it is. - SudoGhost 20:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The author observed a phenomenon and articulated it into a law. Generally in the sciences such laws are named after the observer. --Nug (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have also argued that this page should be userfyed. I just think the description "vanity page" is unfair. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * An opinionated essay is not an eponymous law, which at any rate are named after a person, not typically by that person. That is vanity. - SudoGhost 20:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with acknowledging Collect's keen observation and have the essay so named. --Nug (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nug, what does "The author observed a phenomenon" means? That Collect observed that those editors who make long and frequent posts are frequently not correct? According to whom they are not correct? According to Collect?! Who he is to make such conclusions? If your interpretation of the "Collect's law" is correct, then this law is a manifestation of Collect's blatant arrogance and vanity, and should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I anticipate that this essay may become a tool to attack good faith and knowledgeable users who frequently have to make long and detailed posts in a response to short, repeating, and sometimes ignorant statements. Therefore, this "law" is potentially harmful for Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The more an essay originator resorts to shrill denigration of others' concerns as petty-minded, the more he squeals about WP:GAMING when they add content while advocating deletion or userfication, and the more he yells in boldface, the less convincing will be his denials of WP:OWNership and vanity. Writegeist (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Where it ends up is really a function of the author's preference, as long as they are open to it being edited by others then its fair game for Wikipedia Space. While there are some essay's that are so out of line with Wikipedia policy and guidelines that they are appropriate only for userspace, that is not the case here. While any "law" of debate can be wrong (sometimes more then it is right), or can be abused, this one seems reasonable enough. Monty  845  21:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The fact is that Collect's first law,"The person who posts the greatest amount of repeated verbiage to a discussion, is least likely to be correct.", is an attack at some of our finest thinkers and idea presenters. I've read many a long and winding presentation by SilkTork or MastCell or NewYorkBrad or hundreds of other editors. Any good presenter displays his thought 3 or 4 different ways for different audiences. It guarantees, or at very least, assists understanding. Collect's Law makes light of what some of our best editors do. Should they be chastised for breaking Collect's Law? This is just some cute little ditty that Collect probably stole from Mark Twain or somebody and has twisted it into an his own petty and inaccurate appraisal. ```Buster Seven   Talk  23:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Essays don't need to be correct. If Collect or someone else uses it inappropriately, then that's his problem. Kind of like WP:DICK Gigs (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One should discriminate between not necessarily correct essays, and the essays that are intrinsically incorrect, and cannot be corrected by virtue of the flaws in the main idea they are based on. Using Nug's terminology, Collect serendipitously established the fact that the users, who most frequently repeat the same idea are the most likely to be wrong, and noone can modify this statement, because this is a law named after Collect, so he is the sole editor who is entitled to decide which modification of his essay is correct and which is not. However, can you explain me, who is least likely to be correct: a user who is trying to explain his viewpoint to his peers using new arguments and sources, or a user who restrict himself with brief "oppose; no consensus for that", and do not bother even to explain his point? According to the "Collect's law" the first one is more likely to be wrong. However, that directly contradicts to our policy! --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating that argument here. I think I should invoke Collect's law. :)  Seriously though, I thought about that when I voted, that it's difficult to have an essay like this that isn't userfied.  I wouldn't be opposed to userfication.  Gigs (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Law now contains a hint that editors should provide a link to this essay when they run out of reasonable arguments, and/or as a strategy to denigrate someone else's arguments. I have 2 problems with that: 1) the link is self-promoting Collects name, and 2) since when is it civil or collaborative to denigrate another editors argument. Counsel, compare, discuss, cajole....but denigrate? I think the editor in charge of the page (since he has exclusive rights to edit the page) should choose a more congenial word. ```Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  02:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha! Another editor contributed the first part of that, and I added the bit (see edit history) about the denigration strategy--because that's how the so-called law's progenitor utilizes it when he refers other editors to it. (Not quite the epitome of collaborative editing, eh?) Writegeist (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I did not check the history. Having been witness to many acts of denigration, I logically assumed the hint was Collect's. As you point out, it fit his de-mean-or. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  08:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Userfy. Collect WP:OWNs this essay, because nobody else gets to decide what "Collect's Law" is.  He's welcome to own essays in his userspace.  Additionally, I've recently been informed that essays can be moved out of mainspace if people simply disagree with them, and certainly I disagree with this one.  It sounds like a fancy wrapping paper for the argument that 'you cited your sources, so you must be wrong', apparently a waypoint on the path toward 'the article would be better without sources, and best without any useful information at all'. Wnt (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh? The fact is the essay has now been pissed upon by those who disagree with it - and there is no policy saying "I disagree with an essay" is a valid grounds for seeking removal of the essay - in fact, that would run absolutely contrary to Wikipedia core principles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's interesting to note that you've added more "repeated verbiage" to this page than any other editor and per your own Collect's Law, it seems to suggest that you are "least likely to be correct.". Either that or by commenting as much as you have you've demonstrated that Collect's Law isn't as useful as it suggests, since even the creator of the page acts contrary to it. - SudoGhost 15:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * -- nice post, SudoGhost. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * --Keen observation, Ghost! ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  19:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Debate tactic. Attack your "opponent", and force them into a "defensive" stance, where they must repeatedly respond/defend themselves. (oh and fyi: I've never said whether I agree with the essay, merely that such essays are typically allowed under specific circumstances._ - jc37 21:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Typically allowed, yes. However, when an editor names an essay after themselves, coupled with said editor's ownership of that essay, that is not one those instances, imo.  When that happens, such an essay belongs in the editor's user space, because it is not a "typical" essay. - SudoGhost 22:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Debate tactic: When the opposition succesfully points out a logical breach in your arguments, move the debate into a pseudodebate about debating tactics. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * jc37, aka Jclemens, has omitted a chunk from the "debate tactics". Here is the full version: Attack your "opponent", and force them into a "defensive" stance, where they must repeatedly respond/defend themselves; meanwhile frame a specious "law" (name it after yourself so that its, ahem, ownership is clear), and use it to trump up the charge that your "opponent", having had to repeat the verbiage of their argument in the face of your deliberate evasions, misrepresentations and IDHT, is ipso facto in the wrong. I'm pretty sure I've seen an editor employ this tactic, but I can't quite remember who it was. Writegeist (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Without reading anything additional, I strongly suggest that you show evidence for your accusation of socking, else retract your assertion. - jc37 23:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the apparent meaning of "jc37, aka Jclemens" is an unexpected allegation that is surely not seriously intended? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought it was a legitimate alternate account. Yelling in bold itals noted. Sorry to have flustered you. No socking allegation intended; comment struck.  Writegeist (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Understandable, although I didn't read the yelling. Somehow we thing that all caps WP:CUTS references are not yelling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks SmokeyJoe. Just to clarify---I was referring to Jc37's use of boldface and italics (not a shortcut abbreviation). Apparently "strongly" is too, well, weak unless it's shouted. Lol .  Writegeist (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for striking the mistaken assertion.
 * Second, as is commonly understood online, a single capitalised, bolded, and/or italicised word or phrase in a sentence is to be read for emphasis not shouting/yelling. (Shouting/Yelling is presumed when the whole sentence/paragraph is all caps.)
 * That aside, I find it interesting that, when found to be in error, your response is to immediately attempt to go on the attack. Sounds like another one of those so-called "debate tactics"...
 * Oh and don't waste your time in continuing your bravado responding. You've lost all legitimacy with me in this discussion. So at this point I see further discussion with you a complete waste of time, unless/until I see evidence to the contrary. - jc37 02:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with the essay under discussion. So replied to your personal remarks at your talk. Writegeist (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jc37. Please explain how the manner in which Editor Writegeist replied can be construed, by an administrator, as going "on the attack"? I plan on being in conversation with many administrators in the near future and I would rather not upset them. It seems to me as tho you credibily explained yourself and yet you seem angered and attacked User:Writegeist without any provocation. Please clarify what you mean by "bravado responding". Is that the same as "there's a hole in the dyke responding"? ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  08:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * An administrator is merely another editor who also has been entrusted with some additional tools and responsibilities. So if you're asking how to talk with an admin, the answer is: As you would anyone else on Wikipedia. Beyond that, with apologies to you Buster7, but I personally am disinterested (though in no way was I or am I "angry") in continuing discussion on the above. - jc37 09:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that Collect's "corollary" is simply wrong. Imagine a situation when some good quality scientific or scholarly review article exists on some subject, and this article dissects the issue in details. Other available sources are, e.g. numerous newspaper articles, which are superficial and inaccurate. Does it mean that the user who discovered the former source (which, according to our standards, is the best possible source), and who is insisting on usage of this particular source is wrong? In my opinion, the corollary may be used as a tool to fight against good sources, and, therefore, it should be deleted in any event. By the way, this discussion may serve as a demonstration that Collect's understanding of which sources are good and which are not is far from perfect, so he hardly is in position to teach us what good sources are.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy per Wnt. Cheers.-- В и к и  T   12:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Corollary:"The person who is most insistent on specific sources is least likely to have found the best sources.". Inserted here to assist editors. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  14:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

* And, amusingly, the corollary applies to Collect himself who digs The Black Book of Communism so much. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - essays in the userspace carry a certain amount of weight and community endorsement; they should not give bad or malicious advice. Wily D 07:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The "malicious advice" was added by some who opposed having this essay - I assure you the actual essay has nothing ",alicious" in it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy. This is one of those essays that makes points which are subject to a lot of confirmation bias, i.e. what it posits is valid sometimes and sometimes it's not. Someone posting a lot a is sometimes dead wrong and sometimes xe is not. This essay is controversial because it overreaches in its conclusions. While we do have some "X" and "not X" essays (e.g. Petitions are considered harmful and Petitions are considered non-harmful), it's best that we minimize the number of such contradictory essays in project space. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if it were at all accurate, but as that aside is not accurate, it is not nice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Recent Collect's edits have confirmed my worst fears. He restored his "corollary" with quite an insulting and false edit summary. Not only I explained the reasons for deletion (both here and on essay's talk page), this my point seems to be supported by some other users, so it would be hardly correct to say my point was silly, my behaviour was disruptive, and my intentions were malicious. Definitely, Collect is clearly intended to own his essay. Taking into account that Wikipedia is not his personal blog, I insist this essay to be deleted. PS. I am wondering how this "corollary" can be deduced from the main "law". In actuality, I see no logical linkage between the former and the latter (except some similarity between their grammatical construct: "the person who is ... is least ...").--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The person who is most likely to cite his own law is least likely to be cited by others"?.. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The person who restored the corollary was Newyorkbrad. I am glad to see that you regard his edit as improper.  I would point out that my edit summary to which to take umbrage was not "false and misleading" and I find your continued insults and pu t erility to be a problem far worse than this innocuous essay.   Your "worst fears" seem to be Wonderlandish in nature.  Cheers.  Collect (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "puterility"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting the typo. Collect (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt Newyorkbrad to be a supreme arbiter in this dispute. In addition, he simply attempted to revert the essay to its initial version, without going into details. However, upon meditation, and after the recent discussion on the RSN noticeboard, I came to a conclusion that the "corollary" reflects your poor understanding of what RS are (the RSN discussion demonstrated that quite convincingly), it is simply incorrect, and it is not a corollary at all (it cannot be deduced from the "rule").
 * However, you even did not attempt to refute my arguments. You simply declared they are "silly" and "disruptive". That is extremely uncivil behaviour, however, based on my previous experience, I do not expect any apologies will follow.
 * Your corollary is silly, wrong, it demonstrated you ignorance of what reliable sources are, and it is harmful for Wikipedia. It must be deleted independently on whether the essay will be userfied or deleted. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or userfy this pissy, puerile nonsense. It really seems to be nothing more useful than a blatant (and failed) attempt to discredit editors who won't be intimidated from posting detailed comments that convey deep and nuanced understanding of complex issues. Both so-called laws, being false, are valueless, as already demonstrated; so the piece fails as a serious thesis. And its OWNer, by deleting humorous additions, strips it of any comedic value—which might at least have been a saving grace. Writegeist (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment:"...to be Wonderlandish in nature". Interesting comment coming from an editor that hid in Wonderland when he realized that his RfC was not going his way. Please see Requests for comment/Collect. Also, be assured Collect. Not a single editor will mistake anything you say (in your special archaic and confusing way) to the eloquence and clarity of Editor Newyorkbrad. Your recent edit summary hinting sockpuppetry is abnormal and comically ridiculous. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  13:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.