User talk:Collect/archive 12

Seeking clarity

Collect, I'm sorry, but I'm confused by what you're saying, regarding watchlists and discussions. Really what I'm trying to figure out is, since you appear to agree that this matter should be decided by a properly held discussion, rather than the chaotic mess that got us here, do you also agree that such a discussion will settle nothing unless it takes place at a central venue? Can we look forward to your contributions on the subject at Talk:Abortion debate#Merger proposal? HuskyHuskie (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In order to work on a discussion on a page, I find it pretty much essential to watchlist that page. I have made my opinion known, and the "merge" proposal had been shot down recently in the first place, so all of this is taking additional bites of the apple. AFAICT, the merge proposal has failed in the past, and for one editor to assert that since he got all of three others to agree with him on a different page that therefore his merge proposal has consensus fails to pass the laugh test <g>. By the way, merge proposal in the past generally are held on multiple pages, so all of his posturing and strange revert of my "unclosing" a wrongly closed discussion is just too weird for words. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak for Eraserhead, nor he for me (see my comments on his talk page). You say that merge proposals generally take place on multiple pages? That may well be true (I have no experience in these matters), but I can't see how that works. Especially when there are three articles in question. Could you point to some examples, by any chance?

I don't see that the proposal was "shot down" (to me that term implies a consensus the other way) but submit that the merge proposal failed to gain consensus either way because it lacked a proper forum. There was chaos on multiple pages and determination of consensus was nearly impossible. This is a pretty new topic to me, but I would be quite willing, if I believe that there is a good faith effort on the parts of editors on both sides, to put a stop to future "bites of the apple", once a consensus is achieved in a single forum. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly if a consensus is reached at Talk:Abortion debate then I won't push further for a merge of these articles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You decidedly lack consensus at Pro Life - which means that part is a fail. Cheers. Collect (talk)

I've just been checking the various policy pages - specifically Help:Merging#Proposing_a_merger, and it states (emphasis not mine) "Please use the discuss parameter to direct to the same talk page. Otherwise, two separate discussions could take place in each of the respective talk pages.", so actually the standard practice is always to have a single discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There have been prior merger discussions on the page - and you, yourself, initiated the one which you "closed". Meanwhile, no prior merger discussion on that page got consensus to merge, and there is a clear consensus on that page not to merge. Changing pages for discussion is WP:FORUMSHOPPING so I earnestly suggest that you remove the Pro Life article from your attempted merge. When a page shows a clear consensus against a merge, the merge fails. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

With respect, Collect, your presumption that this is a case of "forum shopping" demonstrates a lack of good faith. Speaking only for myself, I found the experience at Pro-life movement to be frustrating not because consensus was not achieved (indeed, for the short while I was looking in, the merge appeared to have the support of the [admittedly few] participants). The suggestion to move the discussion to Abortion debate was not made because of a lack of support, but because it seemed to me to be a logical way to deal with the problem of split discussions. It's not asking much to see the sincerity of the intent there, I think.

I know that my intent here is entirely based in good faith. I ask that you extend the same and become part of a unified discussion. Go there and express your reasons for opposing. Don't criticize the process, become a part of the discussion to improve the process. Your ideas about the merge, which clearly are against, will be respected, but you must express them. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I only thought the discussion was moved because pro-life had been merged into abortion debate and having the discussion on a redirected talk page would be dishonest and miss any further comments. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In any event, I trust you will carefully note on that page that there is absolutely no consensus to merge from the discussion on the Pro Life page - just as there was no consensus to merge earlier on that page? And that your view that "noone objected" was a tad errant? Cheers. Note also that the "redirect" was challenged, and so using that as an argument is extraordinarily weak. Collect (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

at the time i conducted the merge I believe the statement was correct. Which is the point I was making. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you forgot the lengthy discussion at the top of the talk page indicating the result only a month ago - if you wish to contact everyone who commented there, (allowable under CANVASS rules) that might be a good start before asserting that "noone" opposed a merge. Looks to me like a great number opposed a merge, in fact, only a month ago. Consensus can change, but a discussion of that length only a month ago is not likely to be over-ridden by a total of four people. Really. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I missed that. I'll take a look and contact the relevant people. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Also note that moving the discussion makes the material already discussed unavailable for people to easily read. One of the primary reasons for not moving discussions to different pages. "Relevant" in this case means "everyone who participated" in order to obey the CANVASS rules, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

People's Pledge

I have opened an RfC on the above. (You commented in April when it was brought to NPOVN, the question is still open.) Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Koch Industries

I am truly astonished that you did not know that "heavy industry" is associated with pollution. I do not know where you live or how old you are, but I am assuming from that lack of understanding by experience alone, that you must live somewhere where the population is quite spread out to have that associative understanding.

Dear anonymous, Wikipedia works by using what reliable sources state on topics, and not by asserting that we "know" something. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

List

You made some good points on the Line of Succession to the British Throne. But isn't that site an article about the "Line of Succession" which contains a list. The first 10 lines of the article don't even mention a list. That comes later. That means it is not a stand alone list. But I think the people arguing don't care about Wikipedia, they want to win. 130.102.158.15 (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Collect. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

1953 coup

I'm notifying contributors to the 1953 Iranian coup article about a proposed change in the article posted on the talk page, that adds information about events leading up to the coup. Only a couple of comments so far. Am planning to request comments WP:RfC later. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"folks who back LaRouche"

• Glad to see folks who back LaRouche here. Collect (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Talk:Prescott Bush

What does that mean?   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No improper meaning should be attached thereto, Will. The association of the Tarpley-Chaitkin book with the organization headed by the Lyndon LaRouche organization (published by the Executive Intelligence Review of Washington, a LaRouchian press) has not been helpful, to say the least. Nor has the sensationalist tone and dubious message of Loftus’s The War Against the Jews. is a quote from HNN.US directly referring to those promoting the Prescott Bush conspiracy theory. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI - Jerome Corsi

On 24 May you contributed an observation to a sub-topic in my Jerome Corsi WP:BLP inquiry. I would be interested in responding to your observation and had requested that you consider re-posting it to the article talk since the WP:BLP sub-topic is, IMHO, irrelevant to the purpose of my WP:BLP inquiry and I have no wish to further digress from its intended focus. In the oft chance that you might have missed my request, please consider this note as an FYI. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Larry Norman

Thank you for "de-puffing" the article. Feel free to continue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

GWills RfC

I replied to your concerns on the RfC's talk page. I think we weren't debating the same issue. Sorry for the confusion. --Coemgenus 18:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC on a subpage structure for the Manual of Style

Hi Collect.

As someone who contributed to discussion when the issue was raised a little while ago, you may like to have your say in the current RFC on subpages, at WT:MOS.

Noetica^Tea? 05:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

John Anderson, 3rd Viscount Waverley

Looks like cyber-bullying to me. Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarbieHencock. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of WP:BLP zealot

I guess I'm a little confused about your recent comment. I'm not sure why it comes across as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, the policy I'm trying to get at is WP:CIVIL, and angry ad hominem rants seem inconsistent with civility, even if the target is not named. Am I misunderstanding something about the civility policy? Honestly, I've been here a long time but I've never been particularly active, so it's possible I'm just confused. SDY (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I tend to be very lenient about essays - most would go unread entirely if no one tried to AfD them <g>. Besides, it allows me to get input for "Why we need BLP zealots" as an essay - with examples. (see User:Collect/BLP) I think that such would be extremely powerful indeed. The best resnse to a "wrong" essay is one which powerfully states the reasons why it is wrong, not deleting it. IMO, of course. Collect (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, but I see where you're coming from. Looks like the MfD was closed anyway. Hardly a big deal, that essay doesn't exactly have a lot of incoming links. SDY (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Cirt comment

Hi Collect. I wanted to as you about your "Outside view by Collect" on the Cirt RFC/U. I don't want to read anything that you didn't intend into your statement, so I thought that it would be a good idea to ask you about it.

By my reading, it sounds as though you think that Cirt himself, the Wikipedia editor, was creating (or using someone else's, which is tantamount to the same thing) "scatological "neologisms" based on a person's name", and thereby violating the BLP policy by attacking people from a Wikipedia article. Is that a good read of your view, or am I misreading something?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I intended no such reading of my comments, and do not feel they implied Cirt is Savage at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. :)

Still, the sentence "making sure material which properly falls under BLP in my opinion (scatological "neologisms" based on a person's name, for example) is proper as far as the editors here are concerned." seems... 'wrongheaded', I guess, to me. I mean... Dan Savage, John Stewart, and others, have used their media presence to say the things that they've said, and they'll obviously continue to do so. You seem to be saying that we (more accurately, our articles) shouldn't mention those things because... they're bad? They don't adhere to our BLP policy? I don't know, I'm guessing here. And trying to understand your thinking here, you know? Should we discuss this here, on the RFC/U page, somewhere else (I don't want to stress you out about this, or anything...)?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yellow Journalism/ Gossip Magazine

Hi Collect When you deleted my See Also entry I should have left it at that - I have learnt to see the signs of those whose hubris cannot allow to be contradicted. So, as I don't waste time on these puny ego battles, you can have it your way. But out of curiosity, are your two motivations for removing "Gossip Magazine" from the "see also" section slighty at odds with each other? 1. you say: "rm as no direct connection to term "yellow journalism" is sourced)" 2. you say: ""tabloid journalism" is already linked - rather than have a list of every tabloid aro)". So, shall we go for "no direct connection is sourced" or should we stick to "rather than have a list of every tablois aro"? You decide, you are the boffin here. Oh, as an after-thought: I've seen far more weirder stuff included unded "see also", so please, seeing that you are so good at weeding out out the unnecesary entries, please do that for us. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a weak rationale. We have a "tabloid" link, and "Daily Gossip" would properly fall into that category. The DG article does not use the term "yellow hournalism" nor did I find it associated with DG. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Saddleback (Yet again)

The pro-Prop-8 crowd is at it again, this time with the Saddleback Church article, since Warren's is semi-protected. I'm out of edits for the day, can you look into it?--Lyonscc (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Magog seems on solid ground - the Rick Warren mediation was an adventure, to be sure, and I would hope someone whould point him to the nature of the issues addressed there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Abortion naming

A proposal has been made to rename the two abortion articles to completely new names, namely 'Opposition to legalized abortion' and 'Support for legalized abortion'. The idea, which is located at the Mediation Cabal, is currently open for opinions. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Notification

Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cults The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Jay Severin

Sorry to bother you, but the article you so kindly looked over has become problematic (at least to me). I don't really have the experience or savvy to get an assessment going on what threatens to become an edit war, and I'm embarrassed lest I become a POV-pusher myself. Do you know of any other editors or admins interested in and experienced with BLP issues who might be willing to spend a few minutes reviewing the article and the talk page? Here's a diff for the revised article I put together - it's substantially different from what's currently up. I do apologize for this, but if I'm demonstrating either ownership or POV-pushing, I'd like to be told so by a third party. And I especially want nothing to do with 3RR wars and drama - I already caught myself starting to play stupid games. Thanks. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The two most experienced are Jclemens and Off2riorob, as far as I can tell. Cheers. !!!!

Thank you - I will leave messages on their talk pages. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the undue weight tag, which has been restored. My problem has always been with the absurd amount of brand new unsourced material in the rewrite. Xerxesnine (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no excuse for any unsourced contentious material in any BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Collect - I am logging off. If you have chance please have a look at the article now, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Collect, Arbitrary Determination of What is an RS

Collect, for you to say an AP photo and collaborating news sites are NOT reliable sources is simply incredulous on your part. The matter happened, and just because the gesture was obscene, it cannot be removed because you feel there are not enough sources for it. Your removal has been undone. Removing such content again without going through the proper channels of discussion will result in my request for you to be blocked. The only point of contention is your claim of your ability to unilaterally remove content, which is a critical violation of Wikipedia policy. Diligent007 (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"FamousDockets.com" is not a reliable source. The claim is contentious. WP:BLP requires the removal of such claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthremore, just so that we are clear on this, I went ahead and added an MSNBC news article to supplement the citations to make your claim of an RS a non-issue. So, with all due respect, please stop removing content on your own--you do not have that unilateral right. LOL, how is FamousDockets not a reliable source? What is your cryptic deduction process to determine that on your own? In any event, what that docket site reports is corroborated by the MSNBC report. Do you have any sort of interest aligned with the subject of the article? Diligent007 (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not a "right" it is a "requirement" per WP:BLP. I suggest you read it carefully before making non-cedible charges against any editors. Cheers. BTW, I have absolutely zero connection with Mason, Anthony, the Orlando Police, the Judge, Nancy Grace or anyone else remotely connected with anything here. I suggest you note that making such accusations may land you in "eau chaud." Collect (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Listen, Collect, take some of your own advice: I have not accused you of saying you had an interest, I merely inquired--that's a difference. Furthermore, pay careful attention to Wikipedia:vandalism. In light of the foregoing, you have made a significant and undisputable removal of content on your own--unilaterally--without conducting yourself in a manner consistent with Wikipedia, and that is to seek a discussion about any removal. Consequently, such unilateral removal is considered vandalism. Mason, the subject of the article, is an attorney who is alleged to have infamously extended his finger out towards others in public. No reasonable person would find that to be subject to any sort of debate. In fact, allegedly Mason admitted to doing that because a guy was previously harassing him and/or his staff--but the point is that it occurred. It is of public interest. Various media outlets have documented. Now, if you want to argue against all these media sources, do it the proper way, and submit it for discussion. (Though, in the process, I think you find to be a discredited editor.) Do not, however, hijack an article by virtue of eliminating content as you see fit and come to believe it is okay because it is not. Diligent007 (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Gosh -- try reading WP:CIVIL as well. Where WP:BLP requires removal of material, that is that. As for shouting vandalism I suggest you become aware also of WP:NPA and WP:WQA to boot. Accusing an editor of "hijacking" an article because he enforces WP:BLP is absurd. Cheers. Now please avoid any further argumentative posts on this page. Collect (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policies, specifically as found in Wikipedia:vandalism, I have simply made it incontrovertibly clear that you have been warned. A warning is a required prerequisite to my initiation of any escalated need to seek your being blocked. So, what you call "shouting" is actually the warning Wikipedia:vandalism specifies that you receive. Good day, Collect. Diligent007 (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just for reference, I've just reported this user to WP:3RRNB for hitting 5 reverts (warned between 4 and 5) in the last 24 hours. Maybe we can get more talking and less fighting upon xyr return. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. For a "new user" he seems very familiar with issuing "warnings" about "vandalism", eh? Collect (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

RE:Diligent07

I do appreciate your post - it brings some information to light. However, I'm still going to stay on course and try to mediate this one out. Thanks for coming forward, though! Cheers, m.o.p 04:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that watching will be of use. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Because this talk pages needs more sections... :)

Judging from the argument that is being made, I don't think my removing of the term will do anything than end with me being marked as "involved" in the disagreement. I haven't checked the DRN thread today, but I was waiting for it to reach some sort of conclusion or archiving, either way, so we know whether a resolution has been reached or the other party has abandoned his point. Hazardous Matt (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

All Screwball ever does is accuse me of somehow being a magic hand behind everything he does not like on WP <g>. You would actually be safe on it - it is only I in his sights. See [1], [2], [3], etc. Also note [4] for the heck of it. And [5] for a demonstration of him in action <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I recalled the name so I'm sure I've interacted with him in the past in some form or another. Honestly, the DRN thread should be closed since he's returned to discussing on the article talkpage. I'm hoping an admin will see that. Hazardous Matt (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer Ratel,TickleMeister,Ozoke,etc. was unblocked

I have been affected by this sockpuppeteer. As it seems also you have been affected by this sockpuppeteer, then I must inform you. The account Jabbsworth is the 6 sockpuppet used by the known sockpuppeteer Ratel to evade his block[6][7] and to edit disruptively and warring. Then I do not understand how Jabbsworth was recently unblocked by David Fuchs, precisely just few day after Jabbsworth was blocked by Elockid due the same reason: sockpuppetry to evade a block and edit disruptively and warring. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The above comment probably falls within the prohibitions of wp:CANVASSING, is therefore disruptive because it seeks to overturn an Arbcom decision, and the recipient would be wise to ignore it, or report it. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually - no. Cheers - but read what WP:CANVASS actually says. Collect (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not canvassing as all this people were effected users. Should I fill a complaint? I think this user at least deserve a topic ban because he was not only blocked due sockpuppetry but also because of disruptive and editting warring, in the same few topics and articles. And I think the users affected should be also considered and protected. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 23:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by June 22, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Fjordman

When making this edit, did you consider that a very large number of reliable sources have reported on Fjordman in connection with Anders Behring Breivik and the 2011 Norway attacks? Many of the articles are articles about Fjordman (and other people) that Breivik referred to, and some specifically reported about Fjordman. Breivik was mentioned in the context of reports about Fjordman, not vice versa.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP is clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP says: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (emphasis by me). Can you explain why you consider the material "unsourced or poorly sourced", or whether you see any other aspect of WP:BLP that would advise us to remove that content?  Cs32en Talk to me  01:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see this section, came here to thank you for sharing my and others' concern for BLP issues at Fjordman. However, I have reinstated the paragraph you removed, since there are a huge number of reliable sources supporting the fact that Breivik made use of Fjordman's writings in his manifesto, and since it reports (also with adequate refs.) Fjordman's subsequent statement repudiating Breivik. The paragraph is as short as it can be made and in the context of Fjordman having been frequently cited by other counterjihadists. (I have at the same time removed the "refimprove" tag added by Cs32en, since I see the references to Fjordman's writings as necessary to the article.) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Being mentioned in sources != valid reason for ginoring WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I am. The coverage is extensive, in numerous respected newspapers. Also, anyone can make use of someone's writings: the fact that Breivik reproduced articles by Fjordman in his manifesto is not a bad thing to say about Fjordman. And also, Fjordman published a repudiation (also reported in multiple reliable sources, including the quotes), which I believe it's important to have in the article to offset the press coverage. If you look at the article history and the talk page, you'll see that I and another editor felt the Breivik mention should be minimal for BLP reasons, and definitely nolt a subheaded section. It currently appears in the context of his writings' having been widely cited and reproduced in the blogosphere. If you still disagree that this reasoning is insufficient, you should of course remove it again, but I'd ask in that case that you post to the talk page to provide a full record there of the thinking about the article—and feel free to reproduce this comment of mine there. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

See "Guilt by association." And WP is not a conduit for the "blogosphere" at all -- this is an encyclopedia and not a tabloid. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That's why I think it's important to report also on his own statement distancing himself categorically from Breivik. On the blogosphere - the thing is, he's a blogger. As I say, if you feel I have been contravening BLP policy, feel free to remove it again and/or post to the BLP noticeboard (I already did some time ago, and someone else did later from quite a different perspective). I do welcome your coming in on this, especially from a perspective of BLP policy, but the police have now questioned him (that was added this morning and I just modified it), and his name arises in a large proportion of press articles that talk about Breivik's background: people are going to see his name and come to the article on him for info. All I ask is that if you change the article again to remove or further shorten the Breivik part, you post to the article talkpage so that we keep a record there of the different approaches/opinions. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are intrinsically "self published sources" WP:SPS Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people and not valid for any claims in a BLP. WP is, moreover, not a newspaper, not a tabloid, but is an encyclopedia. That something is puvblished soemwhere does not make it automatically proper in any BLP on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As you may have already noticed, there are quite a number of third-party blogs being used as sources in the article. In addition, the presentation of Fjordman's views is not based primarily on independent sources. Could you have a look at these aspects of the article as well?  Cs32en Talk to me  23:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:V and WP:RS. Blogs are blogs and intrinsically not reliable sources for any article at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I share your assessment of blogs with regard to our policies. That's why I suggested that you have a look at the other aspects of the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you again to please come to the talk page and state there your interpretation of the BLP rules that led you to remove the paragraph that I had endeavored to make as short, NPOV, and well referenced as possible. The police have now interviewed Fjordman and he has revealed his name to the press; the article is being edited with what I consider undue weight on the Breivik connection; as stated above, I disagree with you about leaving this material entirely out of the article, but I do believe the article talk page is where it should be discussed, and at this point your interpretation is not there. All the more important if it's right. Please let us have the various editing points of view there, where they are easy to find. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP is quite clear - no "interpretation" is involved. Reread the policy page. It is in black and white. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see where you are deriving your interpretation, so either I'm missing something or we differ over what "contentious" means, or something. Apologies if I'm being dense. I am deeply aware of the need to follow BLP policy on such an article and as I say, was grateful you appeared and edited from a perspective with that in the forefront. I've posted a response to you there. Thank you for engaging there, so that there's an easily findable record for editors who don't know the issues were discussed here. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Melanie Phillips Breivik content

Hi

It would be useful to have some further details from you at the article's talk page on why you don't want to see the content in the article. I'm about to send the same message to editors who want to see it included, and hopefully we can then get a constructive discussion going on this. SP-KP (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP and the discussions thereon. It is not a matter of "not wanting content" it is a matter of following explicit WP policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks - I suspect the disagreement is because some editors don't feel this content breaches BLP. I feel it would help your case a lot if you could point out the specific sections on BLP which this content infringes, so that those editors who wish to see the content inserted can then understand your argument a little better. Would you be wiling to do that? SP-KP (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Read the WP:BLP/N noticeboard then. I trust my position and the positions of most of the denizens there are quite clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look through that page. A summary at the Phillips talk page would be useful though, if you have time, as I think that's where editors who want to see this kind of content inserted in the article are going to look first to see if the subject has come up before. SP-KP (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Disinvitation to post here

@Screwball23: Your strange view as to what is "conviction" is noted. You reverted an article on which you had made zero edits in the past, and made comments on my user page. You assert what you WP:KNOW and not what is presented in reliable sources. This is moreover my user page and I find your demeanor less than desireable and I iterate my suggestion quite strongly that you refrain from posting anything here in future other than as required by Wikipedia procedures. I find your demeanor, in fact, to be closely related to Butyl mercaptan. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Autograph as signature in infobox: Request for your participation on my point of view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Autograph_as_signature_in_infobox Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

3RR

Do I have to resort to a formal 3RR warning for an established editor? You did not even read my talk page reply before reverting. Siding with editors who resort to disruptive editing to get their own way, will only encourage them to continue in the same vein. The wording reflects the source and is neutral in content. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am at a total of 1RR -- DNTTR folks -- 1RR is not near 3RR. Cheers.

Note further that my talk page edit was well before any action on my part - and you appear to be the only person holding to the insistence that "Vernet claimed the settlement was destroyed." Thus the ball is in your court to overturn the consensus present. Collect (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I had no intention to template the regulars unless it is warranted. Further, I do not appreciate the personal attack in the slightest, especially when you have chosen to side with the two editors responsible for a great deal of disruptive editing. The consensus is with the current text, the ball is actually in your court to over turn it and the appropriate place is the talk page not by edit warring. I am not the only person siding with sticking with the source, we have had months of disruption and needless personal attacks from those two, most people don't respond to either any more. Thank you for encouraging them to continue, all they'll learn is that disruptive editing is the best way to get what they want.

BTW on which SOURCE did you base YOUR edit? Remember verifiability? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus. And Webster. Vernet may have filed a "claim" (formal claim) against a government, but he "said" the settlement was destroyed. [8] note that the "statement" is different from "Something claimed in a formal or legal manner, especially a tract of public land staked out by a miner or homesteader." Understand the difference? Collect (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Which SOURCE says that? Which SOURCE did you use? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Webster. Your source is not available for anyone to check, is self-published, and not written by an expert on Falkland history - it was based on solicited autobiographies from islanders. I think you will note the outcome of the RS/N discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

BLP evidence

Collect, another recent dispute about LGBT categorisation was Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive125#Jay_Brannan. Do you think it's worth adding to the evidence page? --JN466 11:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am relying on Jclemens response to me about evidence, and the ability to add evidence on the workshop page where it deals with individuals. Meanwhile I think my discussions at UT:Jimbo and at User:Collect/counting edits might also bear on some of the issues to be discussed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow

And with things like this happening about the Wiki, people still don't think having pending changes protection to revert vandal edits like these is a good idea. I'm flabbergasted.

Should we try to kick-start the conversation again? CycloneGU (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your input requested

Hello Collect. Please see Tammsalu's new suggestion at WP:AE#Russavia (dated 09:04 on 19 August). You are invited to expand your own comment in the AE, to propose what (if any) category should be put on the Karen Drambjan article regarding left-wing politics. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing of page content at the Koch wikis

Please [removing reliable content] form the wikipedia. As you self said on the talk page, parts are included elsewhere. Therefor we can consider it reliable. I suggest you read this study. Further i remind you to [it civil per wiki policy]. Please refer from you uncivil behavior, quote "The problem is that you know 'what ain't so'. You ascribe specific ulterior motives to a person who is not the "creator" of the Tea Party, which rather means all else of your syllogism fails." I ask you now to re add the removed contends, the study is a legit contribution. Gise-354x (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Greenpeace is not a Reliable source. They are an activist group with a specific agenda, as such their research is very subject. The basic gist of the Greenpeace argument is already in the article as reported from other reliable source. Arzel (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That is not correct because the greenpeace study is based on reliable sources, unless you can show me that they skew the data in question. Secondly Collect reverted 2 other addiotons and edit of Section name too. Gise-354x (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Greenpeace is "reliable" only for its specific opinions cites as opinions per many discussions on the article talk pages at at WP:RSN and WP:BLPN. Treehugger.org is not a reliable source at all. It is required to remove material about living people from articles were the material is not dfrom a reliable source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ofc both sources are reliable unless you can proof that they are not. You seem to misunderstand something here, because the wiki entries in question are not about living person. One is about political activities and the other is a company. Or do you suggest here that companies are people?Gise-354x (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:RS In fact, I suggest you ask at WP:RS/N whether your edit is proper. There you will get more editors looking at the edit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you explain to me why the company Koch Industries should be considered a person, as you suggest above? Gise-354x (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Koch Industries is not, in itself, a "person". Charles and David Koch who are extensively mentioned in the article ar, however, living persons. Any material which impacts onthem must meet WP:BLP requirements. Is this clear? Collect (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No it is not clear because this all has been part of the wiki before i updated it. You just try to prevent that someone updates the wikipedia. Also sign your messages on my talk page. Gise-354x (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you read WP:BLP? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Formatting problem

The formatting of your recent edits to the Manipulation of BLPs workshop page seems have been badly buggered up by extraneous line breaks (did you copy and paste from Notepad by any chance?) [9]. Grateful if you could fix it as it makes it hard to read. Prioryman (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

always Notepad <g>. Collect (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it looked familiar! The solution's simple: the line breaks are added by Word Wrap (under the Format drop-down menu). When you've finished writing something up in Notepad, turn Word Wrap off and copy and paste the text. Prioryman (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

High schools

Hi, thank you for your interest in high schools. Can you let me know which school pages you are currently working on so I can help you? TerriersFan (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Murder of James Craig Anderson

What part of WP:BLP do you think Murder of James Craig Anderson violates? I really don't understand why you think it is problematic (and I'm not trying to be pedantic). No information that has not been in the mainstream national press (not tabloid) has been presented there and it's all well-sourced. You're an editor that I generally have respect for and I'm genuinely perplexed. Toddst1 (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Any time an article which deals with a living person uses "allegedly said (something)" there is a red flag. Seriously. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a place for reciting lots of "allegations" about a person - you may recall the DSK case where people added lots of juicy allegations - only to find the facts as finally printed by reliable sources bore little relation to the juicy stuff. Ditto the Duke Lacrosse case. Ditto the David Copperfield case. Ditto many other cases over the years. Wikipedia does not have a deadline - we can wait for the dust to settle before adding the "juicy bits." Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. You have some good points. There is certainly some balance to be struck between protecting personal privacy and writing investigative journalism. Wikipedia is not the place for the latter, for sure. In this case, the journalists and the DA have set the bar and I've been cautious to not synthesize anything, fully citing every statement. I appreciate your perspective. Toddst1 (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)