User talk:Collect/archive 14

Michael A. Bellesiles

Your recent edits to this article are not helpful. Some editors, including me, are trying to find a balance between including the 16K+ of stuff from the book article, and failing to mention Bellesiles' fraudulent scholarship in writing the book. Others seem to be trying to sabotage that effort, or are at least avoiding rational discussion of it. Lou Sander (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note my position that the section should be a summary of the article, and not the entire article. And note that, to that end, I presented a limited summary thereof. As called for by policy and guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Not your best work, IMHO. Lou Sander (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

But far superior to adding an entire subarticle into the article, for sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Lou, please point out any recent versions of the article which "fail to mention Bellesiles' fraudulent scholarship". As best I can tell, all recent revisions prominently mention the Armed America incident. All editors seem to be trying to find the balance you're describing, and it's not helpful to pretend otherwise for rhetorical purposes. MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Lou won't be with us anymore... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

C'est dommage. Collect (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth

You make good points, I follow your reasoning, and I think you're smart. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion.Jasonnewyork (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - Kind words work better than almost anything else. Collect (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

College cheerleaders

You think this category is trivial? Hard to believe. I've nominated it for deletion. No outcome would surprise me, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

<g> And it has now been repopulated with a slew of Republican politicians -- do ya think that is a random occurrence? Collect (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to comment. Too many conflicting stereotypes. I had no idea it was a "manly" (the cited source in the Bush article) pursuit. I'm gonna have to reevaluate my whole view of cheerleading.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The WP guideline of making categories says that the category must be a rational linkage <g> which I consider a very weak point for this category utterly. Collect (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your concerns about Jon Wiener

Wondering what you would like to do here and how I might help.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - all that really is needed is a person to check out his edits and to suggest that his "there is no problem" position might not work in his favour. It is far from the worst puff pastry of an article on WP, but I think having a second voice in his ear might work wonders (fingers crossed). Collect (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what. I'll put it on my to-do list; what I was thinking about doing was revamping the article, doing newspaper/media sweeps with his name (probably law-related publications), possibly rewriting the lede, cutting out dubious sources, and posting it into a sandbox for your perusal first; right now I am doing other stuff, so it may be a few days, okay?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No need to get my approval <g> the aim is to make good articles without having either puffery nor denigration of people. Collect (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Corrections Corporation of America

The prison riot yesterday didn't say anything about CCA? That's a bit like contending the sinking of the Titanic didn't have anything to do with the White Star Line or an iceberg or the Atlantic Ocean. Activist (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The only connection was running the place - which is rather insufficient for any implication about a corporation which was not in any way implicated otherwise in the "riot." The White Star management, on the other hand, was implicated in the poor decisions about the Titanic - so thanks for showing where you are coming from. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No implication was intended and no implication was made. The edit simply noted a workplace death under exotic circumstances (riot) of one of the company's employees. This is an established and undisputed fact. The edit made no judgment on the competency or efficacy of CCA in operating this facility. BlueSalix (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

CCA has had riots in its institutions on a regular basis. There have been reports regarding them made by contracting and hosting states and monitors. These included, for instance, reports on riots in May and July and September of 2004 in Watonga, Oklahoma, Crowley County, Colorado and Beattyville, Kentucky, that excoriated the corporation and mentioned similar specific shortcomings that existed in all three prisons. There was another riot in Tallahatchie, Mississippi the day after the 2004 Crowley riot but I don't know if the sending state, Colorado, webposted a report. The Crowley report was almost 200 pages. The extensive Watonga report was posted by the sending state, Arizona. Hawai'i has written numerous reports about riots and other incidents in CCA's Arizona prisons. I'm posting this to the Noticeboard. I'm not able to notify user BlueSalix as he or she doesn't have a User page. If you would like to add material on the riots I've cited, they and many others should be fairly easy to find on the Internet. Activist (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20120522/NEWS/205220320/Former-prison-worker-recalls-unsafe-situation Activist (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Collect; Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Corrections Corporation of America has been opened. Activist claims that the above posting consists of notifying you of a Dispute that has been Administratively opened.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Your deletion of another user's edits

With this edit you deleted the previous edits of another user (Unscintillating): [1] Please could you clean up this error, undoubtedly accidental? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Third time it has happened to me - and about fifteeneth time I have seen it - likely due to server miscomunications for "edit conflict". Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Invitation

Out of a sheer penchant for drivel, I've penned an essay on BLP noteworthiness. I don't know what I expect from having done so. But I thought I'd share it with you because you're a regular BLP contributor, and I value your understanding of current policy and guidelines, as well as you opinion of if and how they might be improved. If you don't have time or interest, no hard feelings. In fact, if you think I'm being wrongheaded, please leave a comment to that effect. All the best. JFHJr (㊟) 10:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for being on the case, Collect. Drmies (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

DDR / SED / Terminology

I hope my contributions helped your thinking on these issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber

Dear moderators,

I am writing you in response to the warning you have posted on my talk page dated May 29, 2012, and regarding my contributions to the article "Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber".

Kindly note the following:

• As I have read many articles in the media on Mr. Al Jaber, I was struck by the unrepresentative content on the individual in Wikipedia and on the differences in content between the German and English versions.
• I have bought the book entitled “Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber - High Quality content by Wikipedia articles” by Frederic P Miller, Agnes F Vandome and John McBrewster – Published by Alphascript publishing, 2011 (ISBN: 6135590138, EAN: 9786135590135, http://www.valorebooks.com/textbooks/mohamed-bin-issa-al-jaber/9786135590135 - Price: Euro 35), and I was also struck by its lack of accurate information.
• Accordingly, I have completed the article with sourced and reliable information that refer to the professional track record of this public international figure that is Mr. Al Jaber.
• And as you can see when referring to the sources, the media coverage on the individual is sometimes negative.
• Please also note that I have kept and added positive references regarding Mr. Al Jaber’s track record (such as Forbes mentions, philanthropy, education, awards, etc.).
• Furthermore, please note that I have also referred to the Wikipedia page in German that is very well sourced.

Awaiting for you kind reply,

Best regards,

--Oil.sharon (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are never "reliable sources" for Wikipedia articles. Collect (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Collect. Yep that's about a comment I made on his talkpage. I'll reply to him there later today saying that & the rest. Cheers, --92.6.202.54 (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for having brought you into the stupid mess at WQA

I just want to apologize for bringing you to WQA. I thought the WQA volunteers could have helped you guys find a way to have more peaceful disagreements. But the incompetent mudslinging there by Writegeist has ruined it. I wanted to help you guys out, my apologies for failing. I will try to see if the other users there can give you tips to avoid confrontations.--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If you wish more info, drop me an email. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

re this edit

I really agree with you that national identity should be part of this rule. I'm a little worried though that the more we add, the harder it will be to get consensus on this rule change...... Anyway, let's leave it in for now and possibly remove it if it looks like it will cause a great deal of contention. NickCT (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me -- considering the "Israeli/Palestinian" mess for some articles - let the person determine what they are. But let's see how others feel. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Chip Rogers

Not sure why you consider my edit a revert back to a version marked as a WP:BLP violation. I added extensive sourcing and also added in Rogers' defense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techfan1972 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a matter that the sources used do not meet the requirements of WP:BLP. I suggest you read WP:BLP to acquaint yourself with the policies and requirements of Wikipedia when dealing with biographies of living persons. Meanwhile, please be well advised that continued insertion of material conttrary to policy is heavily frowned upon and may lead to administrative action regarding your account. Collect (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please enlighten me as to what you believe does not meet the sourcing requirements of WP:BLP. To refresh your memory, the guidelines state that edits "must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source." You clearly must not be from Georgia, because the main story referred to in the edits was published on Atlanta Unfilitered, a highly respected news website that is run by a longtime editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (the biggest newspaper in the state). Furthermore, the article contains primary source documents, including video and court records. And in case you still weren't convinced, the story was picked up and verified by Atlanta's ABC affiliate, Atlanta's Fox affiliate, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Associated Press, and several local papers. Rogers responded directly to the stories from each of these outlets, including Atlanta Unfiltered. So to summarize, please explain to me how you think that the edits in question may be good enough information for literally every reputable news outlet in the state of Georgia, but not Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techfan1972 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

When you read WP:BLP and WP:RS please note that Wikipedia does not use or allow "primary sources and court records." On addition, blogs are also specifically disallowed unless under the direct control of a reliable source known for fact-checking. Lastly - Wikipedia is not the place to do campaign work during political silly season. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Then just use the ABC, FOX, AJC, and AP reports. What makes you the judge and jury of what news articles get to be kept out of an article because they aren't flattering for the subject. If multiple TV stations and newspapers are reporting it, it's news, end of story. You're the one acting political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techfan1972 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to me to "fix" edits which violate Wikipedia policies. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper - it uses material of encyclopedic value with claims backed by reliable sources as stated in policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You lose. Blow me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techfan1972 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Report that diff you showed me to IRWolfie-'s administrator noticeboard report

Reporting that to me isn't going to help with anything, I advice you to place it on IRWolfie-'s administrator noticeboard report. It demonstrates Writegeist's completely uncivil, cynical, and disruptive behaviour, and that he holds the WQA volunteer IRWolfie- in contempt and that he holds the whole WQA in contempt as a "dramaboard", odd that he volunteers for something he hates.--R-41 (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I know - see also WP:Mutual admiration society if you wish my "take" on it. At some point, it will be a teensy bit obvious to a lot of others, I hope. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC) w -

Rue Cardinale

It may be worth noting that Mathsci is framing his content dispute with Nyttend in terms of removing material by a banned editor. In fact, Mathsci has been edit warring to remove well-sourced material by User:Silver starfish, who has not been shown to be banned. In fact, no checkuser was run on Silver Starfish because [2] do not see enough evidence to connect them to Echigo Mole. Rather revealingly, that comment goes onto say Those accounts did not come up in my check of Rita Mordio or Thrapostulator. So in fact, Silver Starfish and the rest of the Guozbongleur group are not Echigo Mole. In other words, the weight of evidence was against Mathsci's assertion before the checkuser was run, and afterwards it was even more, even conclusively, so. Undeterred by these results, which he is now attempting to deny [3], Mathsci is determined to have Silver Starfish declared a banned user in order to win his content disupte with User:Nyttend at Rue Cardinale (which he is now disrupting AN with). 94.197.236.96 (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I note that you may be acting for a banned user, and assign your position the weight it merits only. Collect (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

murder of lin jun

hello. the retitling discussion seems to have been archived. presumably the discussion is over. -badmachine 12:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And note that creating a content fork does not work. I supported renaming, I do not support forking on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

i know you supported it. thank you for your level headedness. :) -badmachine 12:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The requested move to Murder of Lin Jun was archived by a robot in error. It is still active, as we've only known the victim's name since June 1 (the move was requested in response to user:Tokyogirl79's proposal on Talk:Luka Magnotta which started at "Hey all, we have an ID on the Asian man that had been killed. It's Lin Jun, a 33 year old Chinese man. Tokyogirl79 04:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)") and the discussion runs for a full week. The soonest this can be closed, even if a consensus is reached, is therefore June 8 (one week of discussion). Unfortunate that this was archived while still active (the 'bot is only supposed to archive threads which have gone a minimum number of days without an edit, not sure what went wrong) but this is still under discussion with no consensus. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sean Sherlock

Hi, Please give reasons for removing expenses and salary data from 'Deputies 2008 Salary, Allowances and expenses payments made to members 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2008' and corresponding 2007 Irish state documentation released as pubic data under Irish Freedom of Information Legislation from this article?

It is

a)Pertinent b)Sourced and verifiable It is not 'undue' as you state or in any manner speculative but directly cited from public domain information released by the Irish government (document title above)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.61.99 (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedoia deprecates material from "primary sources". If you wish the material in the biography of a living person (WP:BLP), you should find a WP:RS source for the claims made. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources are not prohibited per se by WP:RS, but it is advisable to avoid relying entirely on one primary source in order to avoid bias, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

They are discouraged, and since there is no particular rationale for the use of that source, I am of the opinion that it does not belong in the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the data has an excellent primary source - the Irish Goverment itself (the data is available relating to salaries and expenses for all Irish Politicians. This issue of the primary source is not really debatable.

As regards whether it is appropriate - clearly factual data without opinion offered on it relating to the subject without opinion or suggestion is relevent.

I suggest that it would be appropriate that it be added for all Irish politicians as it is information that has an irrefutable source, is entirely relevent and is in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.61.99 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

In which case, start an RfC on the idea - unless you get consensus for it, it will not fly. Collect (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Actual COMMON usage

Pedants claim limiting usage the way you've suggested would render a more, sniff, prestigious dialect but actual practice (see Descriptive grammar) countervails any suggestion such a usage is universally maligned.

1. From that unreliable source (who shall remain nameless--for now):

   Some books[...]have one or more eponymous principal characters: Robinson Crusoe, Moll Flanders, Emma, the Harry Potter series, The Legend of Zelda series, I Love Lucy, for example.---WIKIPEDIA: "Eponymous"

2. Prestigious (if, obv., "descriptive"-) lexicographers at American Heritage:

   "...deriving from an existing name or word: 'Programs such as He-Man and Masters of the Universe ... were all created with the explicit purpose of selling the eponymous toys to children' (Susan Gregory Thomas)."

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Smile

Hello Collect, Status has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Statυs (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Repeated forking of the Luka Magnotta article

It appears that, once again, someone has attempted to fork the Luka Magnotta article with the recreation of Murder of Lin Jun. I'm opposed to this for several reasons: #1, We have a clear majority of Oppose votes to move the article there, and #2, having two articles covering much of the same information means that, if/when we reach a final consensus with regards to whether we should keep the article here, there, or "split" them, people's work and research will be spread around over two articles, requiring a complete rewrite. It's not a smart idea to take it upon oneself to begin spreading information out over two articles without clear consensus IMO. Would you please offer your opinion on the discussion at Talk:Luka Magnotta? Thank you. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVASS and try to use neutrally worded notifications - I have evinced some opinions, but you will find others may well decide to point out CANVASS in their posts, which means my participation might be discounted there  :(. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

A/n/i courtesy notice

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Collect --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Dollar short - already responded to. Cheers - but your attempt to rehash what others already opined on at the template deletion discussion etc. for Romney is all too evident. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read wp:EDIT. Whereas this page indicates that sourcing issues can reasonably be template:Fact-tagged, it plainly says only to delete controversial assertions. Nothing in the chart you removed is in dispute.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP unsourced or poorly sourced claims in any article subject to WP:BLP should be removed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Mathsci and Echigo Mole and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keystone Crow (talk • contribs) 04:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Noting that any such case was elided by ArbCom as being filed by a sock and this notification is non-utile. Collect (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ace work

Thank you for applying the broom to the Craig Thomson affair article. Well done. Best wishes. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Craig Thomson affair for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Craig Thomson affair is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Thomson affair until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

.

Warning

Please be aware that you are a on bright line of WP:3RR yourself, and also in violation of WP:TEAM. (Igny (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

Oh? I suggest you file then - your tendentiousness, personal attacks, etc. should be fun as WP:BOOMERANG <g> Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Billie Jean King

Hi Collect, I notice that you were active on the Bill Jean King article in 2009. It has some major unresolved problems and I'm trying to address and correct them. If you have any input, I've started a few threads on the talk page. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

<g>?

Hey, Collect, I've noticed you write <g> in your posts on occasion, and I was just curious what it meant; I've never seen it before. if you were wondering, got here from stalking User talk:Drmies, and didn't want to interrupt the un-fun conversation there Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It just shows my age - I have been online for three decades now - and <g> was the old shorthand for "grin". <+g> was "evil grin" (meaningful only if you played D&D). Collect (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense; thanks again! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Health Services Union expenses affair

Please point out the text in WP:UNDUE that supports your assertion that "UNDUE applies to talk pages as well as to articles". Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact, all of WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles. Where UNDUE comes in is that the lengthy list of sins of a living person is contrary to WP:BLP and this particular article ran well afoul of WP:BLP before its renaming. The material did not contain any balancing material as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The material is a summary of the findings of the FWA report, one of the major components of the article. It was collapsed and added there for discussion. If editors must find "balancing" material before adding content to talk pages, then I suggest you make a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons to make that explicit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Read the article history and AfD, as well as the multiple discussions at WP:BLP/N on the prior article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the article's history, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Right about now I think you could use the caffeine – Lionel (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your contribution to the article NXIVM. Please do have a look at the available WP:RSes on which the article may be based. Would you say the article reflect them particularly well? Chrisrus (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Before you came along

I was doing there things like that or that for months. So don't interfere.

Alos people generally believe he WAS caught masturbating, and here the article gets things straight. --Niemti (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

What you "believe" has nothing to do with what WP:BLP requires. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not what I believe, it's what "people generally" believe. Learn to read, and stop removing the well-sourced NPOV content respresenting everyone involved and exactly what they said regarding the incident. --Niemti (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:BLPCRIME etc. NPOV is not the only criterion for biographies of living persons. Collect (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Political activities of the Koch family. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Repeated violations of WP:BLP may and must be removed. Cheers. And see WP:DNTTR please. Collect (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You are involved in a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard

Here is the link: [4]--R-41 (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: TFD

I am not meaning this as a joke or an insult, Again I am not meaning this as a joke or insult, I am serious. I need advice on what to do.--R-41 (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We could have an RFC/U -- but unless they are "orchestrated" they tend to go nowhere. I was victim of an "orchestrated" one with 14 people CANVASSed for it. I tend to think Wikiprocesses do not work really well <g>. TFD also asserts that the Swedish Social Democarats are not "liberal", that Ken Livingstone is not on the left, etc. Bide your time - I suspect we are not the only ones who have noted his idiosyncratic attitude towards articles. Cheers. And my email link works. Collect (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the user Writegeist is Wikihounding either you or me.

The user Writegeist has looked into the edits I made on your talk page. I admittingly made a rather crude comment about TFD, and I have sent an apology to TFD for it. You deleted the part of it that you thought was improper for being on a talk page, but Writegeist has been looking into your diff record to find the comment I said. Since Writegeist has been inactive on both your talk page and my talk page, I am very certain that Writegeist is Wikihounding either you or me. I have reported Writegeist for Wikihounding here: [5]. I would appreciate hearing your view on this matter.--R-41 (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Writegeist has stalked me for more than three years (a very large part of his UT page is a colloquy to which he adds his own interpolations! - totalling over 3500 words which has now been there for more than three years ) - and has routinely made snide asides about me to another editor who does the same. The odds of Writegeist showing up on any noticeboard just to contradict me is about 75% at this point <g> and I view him as one of those gnats which always get in through the screens. Odds of him posting again on my page approach 101% now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you address this to the noticeboard at my report on Writegeist I have made here: [6]. Wikihounding is a very serious and malicious violation of Wikipedia policy, and if Writegeist is doing that to you, that needs to be stopped.--R-41 (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

He has done it for more than three years - and seems blessed with a Cloak of Invisibility when needed. Cheers - and I have addressed the issue of his single-mindedness (or less). Collect (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Feedback requested for article on Daily Mail: Quotation from Lord Rothermere's "Youth Triumphant"

Hi Collect,

I would like to discuss the reason for excluding the quotation from Lord Rothermere's Youth Triumphant editorial and have outlined my justification here. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Thanks,

— Posted by Luke Goodsell, 08:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinions about people stated as "fact"

I saw your query about this on the BLP talk page. You may want to use a source from a recent edit I made in Katherine Ann Power. The first edit I did on July 17. The statement was sourced to a POV website which had no citations. It had one quote from a reliable source and based the whole 'essay' on other unsourced facts. "I place before the reader certain facts relevant to forming a judgement" is a statement made early in the text.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I rather think you found a red flag <g>. Collect (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I also added another example to your thread. The wp article about that source has a section that mentions its credibility. The New York Post.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Collect, thanks for calling to our attention the broken reference on our List of Notable Freemasons page. It appears the cite source altered their link formats to several of their pages. Additional sources, for Charles Lindbergh and others have been updated. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

started a WQA

I actually find that an editor calling me a "Holocaust denier" and "Neo-Nazi" or the like is sufficient to go to WQA for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sowell

(personsl attack removed by Collect) -- Scjessey (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion at BLP/N is very clear [7] and fails to support your position. Your accusation of lies' I suggest you redact, as that is a personal attack. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Now at WP:WQA Collect (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Thingian Fooians

To be fair, articles which go into the minutiae of Thingian Fooians seem to me to be bizarre uses of Wikipedia anyway. The idea of a list of LGBT Jews is as bizarre a list as one of left handed dwarves. Rather than single out one entry, why not look at them all, for they are, surely, all unsuitable to be here? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have Quest on my watchlist - and "lo alecha hamlacha ligmor" applies. Collect (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, I'm afraid. Would you mind translating and clarifying? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"It is not up to us to finish the task, but we are not to shirk from the task." Collect (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It sounds like a proverb with many potential interpretations depending on the viewpoint of the reader, though. I still have grave doubts about intersections of Thingian Fooians but two and a half AfDs have chosen to keep this particular article, thus again showing the interesting academic exercise that the alleged wisdom of crowds turns out to be. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The current mood at BLP/N is far more ant-categorization of people then was the case two years ago. Collect (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps it is time for this bizarre intersection list article to be sacrificed on the altar of common sense. My view is simple. If it is valid for it to exist, which I doubt, then it should be complete. I do not, however, think it should exist. But I see the overall banality of the lowest common denominator effect of the wisdom of crowds as something that will insist it be kept. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Just be glad we are not at Commons <g> Collect (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This may be a discussion that you wish to add value to. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not at all surprised with the direction the discussion is taking. We now have the rhetoric from the "How dare you criticise my oppressed minority" camps who speak without necessarily understanding the true topic at hand. They fail to see that no-one is criticising their oppressed minority. This is the "beauty of WIkipedia", that the lunatics run the asylum. I speak as a lunatic. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And I as a heretic <g>. Ever read Poe's "System of Dr. Tarr and Prof. Fether"? Collect (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No, but it sounds just the ticket! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

pink slime

I don't own the entry at pink slime, it has been peer reviewed, and whether I created it or not does not effect the ruthless deletion process and strict editorial guidelines of wiktionary. The idiomatic compound pink slime meets the guidelines there and is not a neologism nor a protologism, it is the correct scholarly term for this product.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You created the entry on Wiktionary. You repeatedly pushed the entry on Wiktionary. You then cite the entry as being the reason it should be used on Wikipedia. That is evident. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of my edits

Could you please not misrepresent my edits as you did here. You represent that I stated "4RR in under 24 hours is [not] a clear and absolute bright line violation". In fact I was agreeing that an editor who had made fewer than 4 reverts in 24 hours could still be considered to be edit-warring because "the edits do not have to be the same to break the rule and 4 reverts within 24 hours is not the absolute rule". TFD (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not think I misrepresented your edit "4 reverts within 24 hours is not the absolute rule" as I was simply elucidating my earlier comments where I said the 4RR was in under 24 hrs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You had written "4RR in 24 hours and 11 minutes is generally considered passing the line."[8] TFD (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually - the 11 minutes is usually considered as breaking the line - one is not supposed to be watching a stopwatch to then aver one was not violating the EW rules. Cheers. Note that I also fixed the time on the complaint to show the lower elapsed time as well. Collect (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

IOW "4 reverts within 24 hours is not the absolute rule", 24 hr 11 min. "is usually considered as breaking the line". TFD (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I would not argue on that - I find the clarification works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)