User:Collect/archive 2014b

Slurs

My understanding is that a slur can be removed on sight if it is not supported by multiple reliable sources that evince the material was worth publishing. "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Tell that at WP:AN/EW at this point I am in "Hail and Farewell" mode -- more than five months into my six month "topic ban" from a topic I had not really edited in the first place, and where the main evidence was me using "bosh and twaddle" to refer to a hypothetical posed -- and Jimbo has not even seen fit to reply to any email. So much for my belief that he took his role as "appeal court" with a microgram of seriousness. Cheers -- but I rather think the time has come to say .... (fill in the blank) Collect (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that part of being a good Wikipedia editor is getting muddied and disparaged by a very poor system of dispute resolution. In my opinion, new editors should be warned about this, and strongly encouraged to use an alias rather than their real names.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I am very sorry to see that you're contemplating leaving. I've appreciated your straightforward and courageous approach over the years. I am not at all happy about what Wikipedia seems headed toward. If you for sure decide to leave, I wish you well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs, although I don't know Collect as well as Bugs does. Anyway, Collect, I wouldn't jump to conclusions about WP:AN/EW. After all, wasn't the thread closed without action?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I hope you decide to stick around. If the good people leave, then where will that leave Wikipedia? Andrew³²⁷ 08:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

At some point you have to ask yourself "What is the point?" Sometimes it is better to let a dying tree die rather than try to give the illusion of health by keeping a few leaves alive. Arzel (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm in the middle of my second ArbCom nightmare, and am curious to see how it turns out. If the result is as f**d up as before, then I may be talking like you guys.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A strength and weakness of Wikipedia is that a few experienced people working hard together can do just about anything. Up that to about 6 and it includes 60% fixing Wikipedia. Anybody in? North8000 (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No vast center-right conspiracies for me, thanks.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I was wasn't talking about balance, just about making the machinery work better. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that would be fine I guess, but all of us irritations would have to reach consensus about how to improve things.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

My premise is that policies, guidelines and structures are what create and solve problems, and am trying to develop a roadmap and such at Wikipedia:Strategic issues with core policies, guidelines and structures North8000 (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

People already don't follow guidelines and those that would enforce them seem unwilling to do so under many situations. For every editor like you there are 10 more with a seemingly infinite amount of patience to promote their personal propaganda or trash those that they hate. Arzel (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Why BLP is important -- and the true motivations of at least one sock puppet master in the past:

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck (ha!), and smells like a duck ... it's probably a duck (your peregrinations in gay bars notwithstanding). sken 18:37, 23 t z (UTC)

Excuse me, but how do you construe my proposed edit as "labeling"? How is reporting the facts of a person's life (books referring to his sexuality) labeling? You seem to be having a lot of trouble thinking this through logically. You are also wrong about the notability and relevance of his sexuality. d is a conservative commentator with a lot of motivation to hide his sexuality from his conservative readership. Perhaps he is another F, closeted away. Is it our duty to help him in this endeavour? Why is his sexuality notable? Easy. He makes explicit and implicit moral judgements about people and their sexuality. The public deserves to know where he's coming from on this topic. fbe they'd see his defence of F, (COMMENT REMOVED BY y PER WP:BLP), in a different light if they knew he was accused of being a closet homosexual. dmade huge play of J and L touching each other during the last presidential campaign, implying they were girly-men, even queer. Again, anyone who makes public such aspersions can justifiable be scrutinized on these ground himself. sken 20:26, 23 t z (UTC)

Really, this has been a rather shameful display of bias and poor judgement by the wiki-ites here with veto powers. I have been accused of making stuff up, of having an axe to grind, of wanting to label someone as a "Jew" and a neocon, and of gay-baiting - all false and vicious libel against me. The descriptions in published books of x's behaviours and predilections are dismissed as trivial slander, when living people (B, Z) either had sex with him or were propositioned by him, on the record. Z said he'd sign an affidavit to that effect. B has the emails. The dearth of countervailing voices here, the lack of people without conservative agendas, is appalling. What's happened, has wikipedia been taken over by Bush-bots? It seems likely. Since all edits that cast what f be construed by the most myopic editors as a poor light on our GOP white knight are summarily and haughtily dismissed, with only a cursory attempt to "debate" the issue (including veiled threats of legal action, personal attacks on me, the building of an army of straw men and wilfully deliberate misinterpretation of what I have attempted to do), I am left with no alternative but to publish a web page elsewhere covering these issues. sken 05:42, 24 t z (UTC)

He's a Libertarian the same way he's heterosexual - only in his own fantasy of himself. In real life, he sleeps with men and donates money to the GOP, and votes GOP - all these FACTS documented reliably. There are no donations to the Libertarian Party of America that anyone has heard about. sken 21:50, 24 t z (UTC) And let me add that anyone with even a tiny scintilla of intelligence can see from the content of his "report" which way he leans politically. sken 21:55, 24 t z (UTC)

What rubbish! Something published in a well-known public figure's autobiography is not "unsourced or poorly sourced". Secondly, stating that a person is possibly homosexual, according to verifiable third party accounts, is not libellous, since homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is not a crime, so no harm accrues to Mr x. We are not disclosing debate or accounts of whether or not d is a pedophile, rapist or Peeping Tom. The fact that you view gayness as litigable tells us more about you than it does about the American legal system or the true definition of libel. sken 21:41, 12 November z (UTC)

Homosexuality as something which f still qualify as "defamation per se" but it is becoming "defamation per quod" (meaning you have to prove actual damages to win a lawsuit, something a self-employed re-poster of internet links like dcould never do). In addition, dwould first have to sue B et al before suing WP for reporting their published recollections of salacious emails and dates. sken 00:20, 13 November z (UTC)

Here's a good Early Life description from WP: Albert Einstein. It shows a level of detail that seems unacceptable here. Why is detail being expunged unnecessarily? None of this stuff is legally actionable under any circumstances, so you are not right to revert on the basis of your (slanted?) idea of what "notable" means. If you are convinced I'm trying to make the subject look bad, why not balance that by inserting positive, but true, data? Build the article, don't stunt it! You do not make the subject seem better than he is by suppressing data available elsewhere, which is thus far your modus operandi. (And Cp, it was waaaay more than "rumours"). sk (Talk) 06:06, 18 December z (UTC)

Nobody gives a tinker's cuss for your thoughts on the matter, whether you "care for" dor not, how long you've signed up at WP, or whether you think the terms liberal or conservative or pejoratives or not. All of that adds nada to this page. As for the gay issue, it is highly relevant given the man's use of (supposed) homosexuality as a weapon against public figures (J) and conversely, his defence of a fellow conservative (F) who engaged in sex talk with under-age boys by blaming the boys. In light of these actions, his own obvious homosexuality is very germane, especially when it is public knowledge to anyone with a scintilla of intelligence, or anyone who reads widely. However, WP treads very gingerly with facts in the biographies of living people, for legal reasons. sk (Talk) 15:42, 20 February a (UTC)

Do not revert my addition again! You are starting an edit war over a non-contentious inclusion that I can back up in every way. 1) x thinks GW is bunk - everyone who reads/listens to him knows that that is true, and 2) GW is a fact supported by a majority of the world's climate scientists, and if you stopped listening to right wing talk radio for a second and read the scientific opinion on climate change you'd conceded that too. Back off, full bladder. This is not a place for you to settle grudges. sk (Talk) 15:31, 28 February a (UTC)

"Accurately sourced" - mp3s of x's own broadcasts are considered inadequate, published comments on non-blog sites are considered inadequate (that site's a "joke" dude!), etc. Where there's a will to exclude information form WP, there's a way. As for "critical comment", I was simply stating that others are critical of his stance, which is completely encyclopaedic, falling as it does under a section called Criticisms. Hilarious. Have fun writing your version of reality. I've stopped caring, because this has all the hallmarks of a madhouse. sk (Talk) 21:37, 1 e a (UTC)

But since the link to the M article existed on this page for ages, more than a year at least, why is there a sudden war over its existence? y has a campaign afoot to purge this page of any taint of critical content, that's why. G*ddamned conservatives trying to sanitize the wikipedia, ruining it in the process. Now wait to see them reply on how I've breached the assume good faith nonsense. Sigh. sk (Talk) 00:00, 20 q a (UTC)

I do not agree with your view, V. The tangential reference to x's homosexuality is not "gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets" but information contained in an autobiography by a well known person (Brock), and it is moreover public information that has not been challenged by x himself. sk (Talk) 00:15, 20 q a (UTC)

Libel? It was published years ago and no libel ensued. Moreover, the link to that article has existed on the dpage of WP for years without comment, until now. y has decided to include the link in his/her sanitization drive. Now suddenly it's untouchable? I don't think so. The "nasty faggot" jibe is quite in keeping with the sort of dirt, scandal and innuendo dhimself dishes out all the time; thus it is in perfect juxtaposition. sk (Talk) 21:04, 23 q a (UTC)

V, I personally do not care about the gay thing per se, but I do think that any allegation, if made repeatedly in published books, especially best selling books and autobiographies, ought to be at least mentioned in the article, especially if these allegations were neither denied nor attacked legally. Gayness is a very political issue in the US, and it's of great interest and concern to most politically-motivated people, and these would be heavily represented in the readership of this page. If Mr d simply linked to news articles on his page and no more, an argument could perhaps be made for excluding the information from the wiki page, but since d actually enters the fray and inventively uses the sexuality of others as a weapon, his own sexuality becomes extremely germane. Surely you can see that? I also think the M article is pretty well written, if a bit acerbic for some tastes. Having said that, I'm prepared to trade the M link for a proper inclusion of this information on the WP page. Now, how do you suggest we include the gay allegations in the article? If you like, I can come up with a suitably cited sentence or two. sk (Talk) 05:34, 25 q a (UTC)

We are not "outing" x, others have already done that. We simply report it. And we report the denial. Why is it noteworthy? 1) Because it is out there, in books and newspapers, and 2) because of his attack on a gay journalist. So it does have bearing, it goes to his character and trustworthiness, and it represents (I'll say it again) the most common reverted edit to the dpage. Let's report the facts as we should, and so discourage all the vandals. sk (Talk) 06:56, 30 q a (UTC)

The Toronto Star article says "d has some nerve, since he's a gay man himself". Pretty good source, IMO, although dforced them to withdraw that statement (this is notable in itself, must add it to the edit or edit footnote). I have no problem seeing the abstract for that article. sk (Talk) 22:08, 4 p a (UTC)

Well spotted, they are the same stories but I was fooled by the different URLs. As for the comment on "hypocrite", I removed that after you pointed it out, didn't you notice? There is a disjunction between the W thing and the gay aspects, but the Toronto Times's retracted sentence would have linked them nicely. I f have to use it as a link. Forced retraction? Papers only retract and apologize when it's demanded of them, rest assured. But I'll change the footnote to say simply "retracted". sk (Talk) 00:40, 5 p a (UTC)

I trust people can see that I do not care whether the allegation is "gay" or "homophobe" but that material which is a slur is contentious per se, and requires strong factual sourcing, and not using a retracted source. Cheers and farewell. Collect (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC

If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC: second survey

Hi Collect, thank you for your contribution to the RfC on Justin Bieber's behaviour and legal issues. Some users have posted that the RfC is currently a mess, and that we need to be very explicit in what we agree to include and what we don't. As such, I have created a second survey, which cuts the content into points. Could you take the time to post your opinion on each point, whether you think it should be included or not, or summarized, or changed. It will be a bit tedious but we need your detailed input to move forward. Thanks again. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

See my reply at User talk:Moxy#Justin Bieber RfC: second survey. I think we have to except the fact we have a new generation of editors here. We have much younger and less educated people here now. We have have to understand that encyclopedic content is not understood my many. At one point Wiki was filled with experts ...now everyone edits....good for growth but bad for encyclopedic content. We live in a youth based news world now where people think the daily lives of celebs is relevent to the world. Just look at Kim Kardashian they talk about a "cookie diet" ...just image what could be written about JFK or MJ...but lucky they are adult topics. -- Moxy (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Alas -- that does not mean us ancients should throw in the towel. Collect (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion

I warned Peace In Mississippi (formerly TheKillingNoise yesterday) here yesterday. Unfortunately today, they've been edit warring to keep negative trivialities in Schultz and unsourced info in Appel (I've checked about five times and the sources don't back up her addition). Would you recommend a RFC/U or going straight to ANI? If RFC/U, would you be willing to certify? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Go to AN/EW -- noting that they had edit warred in the past, and this is a continuation of that behaviour. Collect (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Iona & Impact

Graham Norton is far more well-known than the only person referenced in the current section, Kathy Sheridan. Also it seems there a balanced to section to point out both Iona's positive and negative impact. Paul Moloney (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Find someone known to be an expert on extremism when you use them to call someone or something extremist. AFAICT, there is quite sufficient negative stuff in that article now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

" since it is said that a gay comedian's comments are "notable" we should identify him as such" - I don't see you insisting that other people mentioned on the page should be labelled "straight. Paul Moloney (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The word "gay" from Black Kite stating why Norton should be included -- I only do what folks suggest. Yell at them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Op47 (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Your accusation there is ill-founded and egregiously in bad faith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

ACORN

Try adjusting the material to match what it is you're driving at; the text Throughout the election season of 2008, supporters of Republican candidates portrayed ACORN's submission of invalid voter registration applications as widespread voter fraud is from the article body itself, but you wholesale reverted. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Corrections Corporation of America

The $20,000 given by CCA to Governor Butch Otter, spread over two statewide elections, was enough to make a substantial impression on Otter. It was matched nationwide only by the same amount given to four-term governor of Texas, Rick Perry, whose state hosted a dozen CCA-operated prisons, though it lost two contracts, Mineral Wells and Dallas, last year. Mineral Wells is vacant and Dallas ended CCA's operations. Activist (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We use what the source said and it said "since 2003" and it is clear that it was not illegal corporate donation, so that inference absolutely is inapt. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Rats. Just lost an edit here thanks to one posted in a new section on your Talk page. I didn't imply that CCA's contribution was illegal. However, in a small state such as Idaho, the total was substantial enough to command a good deal of attention on the part of the recipient. I can't imagine that it wasn't germane with respect to Otter's protracted reluctance to deal with the problems that CCA persistently visited upon the state. There is little question that they should have been dealt with years ago and that procrastination compounded the difficulties. I hope I'm not sounding too critical. I've appreciated your edits over a wide range of subjects and a long period of time. I would suggest that we do list the contribution total without any implication that it drove any decisions, or was a quid pro quo, just as a statement of fact. Do you think that would work? Thanks. Activist (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS] means you need a specific secondary reliable source making assertions - it is not up to us to know or imagine connections - we only can use what those sources explicitly state. In the contributions case, the source stated "since 2003" which is pretty much what we have to live with. Collect (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I goofed. I was looking at the "lawsuits" section and overlooked the "oversight" section. I'm obviously trying to do too many things at once. Your edits are fine. Excuse my error. Activist (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Merci. Collect (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

DD

Per this, removing specifically reliable sources and Robertson's well documented black comments, was never discussed. Please don't claim consensus where none was ever established, let alone talked about. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Um -- I take it you seem to forget the rules about WP:BLP already. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you really going to pretend that this is a BLP issue? That exact content has been there since the beginning of the controversy, and you saw it. Why do you now think it rises to a BLP crisis requiring a skilled denial that it ever happened? As fun as it may seem to rewrite history, it's not in line with NPOV. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh? It deals with living persons and you say it only a "pretend" WP:BLP issue??? Really? Collect (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop the hysteria, although the content surely surrounds living living people we are not in violation of BLP and you know better. This is a content issue, and we have reliable sources presenting NPOV content that you want removed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, see Talk:Phil_Robertson#RfC:_Can_we_include_the_comments_Robertson_made_about_blacks. and note that the result was not even close. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That was a bad call i think but the consensus was to allow removing of valid content. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Scarcely a week back -- way too early for you to reverse that decision -- trust you agree on that. Collect (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit disingenuous as you and i commented there the first week of January, hardly a week ago, and i pretty much gave up on that article since it was obvious to me how editing there was evolving. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Um -- the close was on 16 Feb 2014. I suggest that 16 Feb is quite recent. And the fact is that you commented there, and the close was damn clear. Your apparent desires notwithstanding, that you :gave up: trying to put in a POV there does not make it proper for you to insert the same BLP violation in another article at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As fun as it may seem to simply argue about trivial matters, I explained why I didn't see something from 6-7 weeks as recent, of course what happened last last would be but again who cares? I didn't try to put in a POV there, I gave my opinion on why removing valid content violated NPOV, others disagreed, and so I moved on. No one has yet to demonstrate any BLP violation has occurred but you may believe that no matter what is stated otherwise. It has been there the entire time while dozens of people edited that same content, even you I believe, and has only just been removed by you and now an RfC to discuss that content for the first time on the DD article is taking place. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ten days is recent. And we do not have RfCs on every single article -- that is known as "forumshopping" Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: Sportfan5000 was a sock of a blocked user. Collect (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

HSU

Collect, I'm rather puzzled by your stance on this one. This whole thing has been a major media scrum from day one due to the huge public interest. This may not be the case where you live, but the two principals (and yes, their family and associates) are under public scrutiny. This is part of the general corruption associated with some elements of the union movement and the NSW Right. The Obeids are a case in point.

BLP is one thing, and we shouldn't use our encyclopaedia to beat real people with a stick that they cannot fight back against, but whitewashing the affair or sweeping it under the carpet or hiding it in some way just carries a whiff of the very sort of "nothing to see here, folks" attitude that aids corruption. It's like trying to shut down the Fitzgerald Inquiry. Sure, there's some political sensitivities in play and we don't want to become one-eyed or one-sided in our coverage, but neither do we want to hide or sweep away the truth, especially where there is such intense public interest.

The federal government has flagged a Royal Commission into union corruption. This is going to be a big deal for the next year or so (I'm cynical enough to suggest right up until the next election) and there are going to be any number of juicy stories. The HSU thing will be a highlight, and my educated guess is that more individuals and corruption will be brought into the light. Those in the know might name names, but not I. Not yet.

My recollection of this thing is that when it surfaced, you tried to shut it all down. Just a "silly season" story, you said. Well, it ain't. Not here. Perhaps you have an excellent knowledge and interest and experience in Australian culture and political history that you have so far managed to conceal. I cannot say. But it seems to me that those who do not understand a topic should not be offering high-level advice to those who do.

Having said that, BLP is a big deal - we are all living people and our rights are important - and your advice from that perspective is always welcome. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not try to "shut anything down" - and I suggest that listing the same person seven times in the same infobox is ludicrous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Jahi McMath

The fact of the matter is, a court of law has ruled that Jahi McMath is dead. Reference here.

If someone is convicted of a crime by a court of law, we categorize them as convicted of that crime. It does not matter whether that person objects or proclaims their innocence - a court of law has ruled that they are guilty, and so Wikipedia reflects that widely-accepted judgment.

Here, we have an analogous situation. Jahi's family tragically continues to claim that she is alive. That is an interesting claim, even a notable claim, and certainly worthy of consideration. But that claim conflicts with the ruling of the courts of the state of California, as widely reported in reliable sources, and that ruling must be considered controlling. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The precept is "do no harm." In any case where there is a potential for harm, we must act in the most compassionate manner possible, and the idea that a redirect needs any categories at all is clearly not in accord with that precept. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

So we are required to remove the category "People convicted of murder" from anyone who contests their conviction? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with having no categories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The main thing is redirects should never be categorized. Collect (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Denis MacShane

Hi, I'm a bit confused by your recent edit to Denis MacShane. You say it's poorly sourced, but it has two references (one to the Telegraph which is hardly tabloid). I'll admit that section is a bit of a laundry list, but that could probably be addressed by changing the tone rather than removing sourced material? --h2g2bob (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to start a discussion on Talk:Denis MacShane as there's several involved editors. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

See the discussion at WP:AN/EW please. Collect (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

3RRN edit

Did you remove my statement from the Denis McShane 3RRN discussion via this edit [1] because I'd gone over the top, or did it disappear in one of those edit conflict disruptions? I'd assumed the latter, but didn't care much because the matter seemed properly resolved. But since Sportsfan keeps reopening the wounds . . . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

EC stuff -- I did not try removing it, and when Sportfan5000 accused me of doing so the proper action was to restore it and note what happened. SF5000 has a very interesting view about BLPs, alas. Collect (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem at all. I was hoping things would just settle down, but must have had my rose-colored editing glasses on this morning. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. Edit-conflict edit

My edit summary was directed at the previous editor at Ronan Farrow, not you. My apologies. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC) NPCollect (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing

I don't think I'm canvassing here. I merely informed every editor who already posted in the General Survey section to post in the second Point-by-point survey, since the response rate to the Point-by-point survey was a poor 5 out of 16. I didn't only inform editors who supported the inclusion of the content. I informed editors who opposed like Herostratus and Tarc because they posted in the first General Survey. I didn't inform you and the other three because you've already offered your opinion in the second survey. Look, I'm only trying to get progress here. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I merely suggested you read WP:CANVASS quite carefully, and make sure that you either write to either a very small number of people who are not known to have a view on the topic, or else everyone who falls into the potentially interested group you appear to have found -- and then make sure your posts are absolutely without any clue as to your own personal views on the topic. It is better to be wary of the problem than to have it raised at a less convenient location. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware or WP:CANVASS. So you're warning me about potential future canvassing? Seems weird because I've already finished informing who I've wanted to inform, doesn't seem that I'm going to do it again for the RfC. You said that I was "pushing the boundaries of canvassing editors". I'm sure I've informed "everyone who falls in the potentially interested group". Actually, the first reminder I sent out informed every single person who participated in the RfC to participate in the second survey. Some of those people (example Dr.K.) did not even participate in the first General Survey, and still have not participated in the first or second General Survey. Given that I've reminded them once, I took it as a sign of disinterest, so I did not issue the second reminder.

The second reminder is only for those who have shown more interest by posting in the first survey, because any opinion only posted in the first General Survey is considered a 'mess'?

If you had read my 'reminders' on their talk pages, you'll see that I have not attempted to influence their decisions in any way. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not in a position to judge whether you used absolutely neutral wording - I only noted that you made a great number of posts to user talk pages. Collect (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I know this is late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I know we don't always agree but I appreciate your sincerity and passionate contributions to the project. So thank you for your support and for your continued sense of fairness in all areas of WP. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I was aghast at some of the "opposes" to be sure. Collect (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Hey, I believe that BLP applies to talk pages as well as article pages. If that is the case, there are two editors who have asserted and continue to assert that all the scientists on this list article are actually part of a "vast conspiracy" of the fossil-fuel industry. I think that that should be removed from the talk page. Is that correct as a matter of policy or am I mistaken? Could you take a look? Capitalismojo (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed incorrect per policy to call them a "conspiracy", but I fear that "Man as a species is guilty of whatever we think is wrong" is a sort of religion which is regarded as "gospel truth" by some, and so it is rather like trying to make sure that any religious article is compliant with policy -- there are those who "just ain't gonna let it happen". At this point I rather consider myself a political "pragmatarian (tm 2014)" facing "true believers" of all sorts who decline to believe not only in the rights of others to sincerely hold disparate opinions without being deemed morally corrupt, but also that it is nearly imperative that such people exist in the first place. In the long run, I suspect that the "true believers" will gradually diminish their hold on some articles, and in many areas, but I do not think the current "people in charge" are willing to face up to their ultimate responsibilities for the current sad shape where "true believers" in any field can rule the project, or any project (noting that "true believers" tend to try to run whatever they can - not only Wikipedia.) End of micro-essay. Collect (talk) (Note: Ia m not using the term "pragmatarian" as used by some bloggers to indicate a specific type of "libertarian" but as meaning that societies which use dogmatism as a basis for rule tend not to survive, and that societies which are able to look at issues in a pragmatic manner are able to adapt to inevitable disasters and to surmount them -- which s how civilization actually grows and thrives) 13:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Collect (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

This is easily one of the most disingenuous edits I've seen from any editor. I'm documenting it here, even though you are just as likely to delete it, so at least we have evidence you were called on it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe I have told you in the past" (unsigned)

Stay off this talk page.

That you might think there is an exception to WP:BLP so that you can use terms not in the sources does not mean that removing them as required by WP:BLP is "disingenuous" whatsoever. I never heard of the person other than on WP noticeboards, and have not the slightest direct interest in the person -- all I do is follow Wikipedia policies, and I urge you to do likewise. Cheers -- and DO NOT RESPOND. Collect (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

(Bullshit removed) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomo, I don't know about the "patronising" incident, but regarding the other incident you must undoubtedly be aware that yet another admin said "Don't agree with the vehemence of that comment [accusing Collect of lying] but there is some sense in it." I think the issue there was use of the phrase "drinking the Kool Aid". Collect pointed out that the phrase originated with a mass suicide in Guyana which is correct, and not 100% irrelevant. That etymology is why I myself never have used that phrase (as far as I recollect). Its meaning may have evolved into something less drastic than mass suicide by gullible fanatics, but it still seems like a tacky phrase to me, and its meaning is sufficiently ambiguous that it could be taken the wrong way, or could be inflammatory. The person who started using it in this instance was obviously seeking to be inflammatory (also using phrases like "fuck the chicken"), so maybe your protestations would be more apt at another user talk page?Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: Sporfant5000 is a sock of a blocked user. Collect (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Florida's 13th congressional district special election, 2014". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 01:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

In case you were thinking of filing an SPI

Hi. In this edit summary you stated rv probable sock IP. You are most likely correct. In fact this looks like a sock puppet of User:IIIraute, who shortly after using the anon-IP account to make a controversial change began edit-warring with you over that very change with his main account. Why is this likely him? Compare what happened at the page on Angela Merkel shortly before. An anon-IP account made a controversial change (over content IIIraute previous edit warred over) [2], then when that was changed, IIIraute ... jumped in with his main account to edit war ([3], [4], [5]). Note the geographical confluence of the two anon-IP accounts. When I had previous run ins with IIIraute it was pretty much the same set up. In all of these instances, whether in this particular case, on Merkel, or on other articles, first anon IP, then IIIRaute jumps in and goes right up to the 3RR line, then stops, and other suspicious, usually new or long dormant accounts show up to continue the edit war. The latter ones may be meatpuppets rather than sockpuppets, though a checkuser could clarify that. Thanks. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP opinion

Hello Collect, I wanted to stop by and get your opinion on a BLP lede question if you're willing. We have a poll going on over at Talk:Ken Ham regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the word "incorrect" with regard to the subject's young-Earth claims. I'm not looking to prompt you to go over there and involve yourself (that would be canvassing on my part), instead I'm just interested in getting your opinion here on your Talk Page. If you're willing to look at it, would you say that we should or shouldn't say the subject's claims are "incorrect" in the lede? Do you think BLP and NPOV require it, or does BLP frown on it? I'm curious to get your take on it if you're inclined to share it. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Conga line

I was being charitable to your "fans". Your BLP/RSN topics seem to draw them out of the woodwork. No offense meant. Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL -- I can point out a couple who seem to be inveterate "I oppose this because Collect is here and favours it" posters (some seem shocked when I happen to hold their views on a topic -- which makes them extremely uncomfortable, to be sure. Collect (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

3RR violation on Charles Keating

You've violated the three-revert rule on Charles Keating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (12:51, 3 April 2014, 02:44, 4 April 2014‎, 02:52, 4 April 2014‎, 11:20, 4 April 2014‎). Can I convince you to self-revert your last change to comply with our policy on edit-warring, and to commit to discussing the issue on the talkpage rather than continuing to edit-war? MastCell ^Talk 17:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverted -- I trust you left the same message for the other editor who is also at 3RR? Collect (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW you should note that I have absolutely using the talk page there -- why did you feel the need to remind me when I already have done something? Collect (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for self-reverting. If you're already using the talkpage, then I apologize; please amend my post above to ask that you continue using the talkpage in lieu of edit-warring. Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) is at 3RR but hasn't gone over as you had, so I didn't leave a note, but if you'd prefer I can do so. I've also pinged him in this comment, which may suffice. MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

count [6] 12:43 3 April [7] at 01:29 4 April, [8] 02:48, [9] 11:11 and tell me how many that comes to. Cheers -- but maths counts. Collect (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Your first diff links to an edit by you, not by Wasted Time R. Thanks for the lecture on counting, though. MastCell ^Talk 01:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that Windows 8 is a pain-- the correct link is now in position, and I trust you will quickly note that it is indeed not by me. My count is quite correct here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the first edit is a revert; it looks like Wasted Time R was providing a citation where someone had requested one. But I also don't feel like arguing this any further with you, so I'll concede whatever it is I'm supposed to concede here. MastCell ^Talk 00:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

YMMV but the edit was not "providing a citation" it was and obscene materials, and in shrill and alarmist tones (asserted that) pornography led to moral decay and opened the door for Communism which appears to me to be a substantive edit and not simply giving a cite. Now if that material is simply a "citation" then I shall cheerfully concede your correctness. Collect (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This is why I find it difficult to have a serious conversation with you: you triumphantly "prove" an irrelevant point that no one is actually disputing, while completely ignoring the substance of my comment. For the record, I didn't say the edit was insubstantial; I said it wasn't a revert. We're talking about the 3-revert rule, not the 3-substantive-edit rule. Can you show me how the first edit undoes another editor's actions? I'm not seeing it, but I'm open to reviewing any diffs you can show me to demonstrate that it was a revert. MastCell ^Talk 19:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually you wrote it looks like Wasted Time R was providing a citation where someone had requested one and you indeed regarded it as not substantial. Your definition of "substantial" and mine differ. Your post (This is why I find it difficult to have a serious conversation with you: you triumphantly "prove" an irrelevant point that no one is actually disputing) is unhelpful if you wish to act as an admin with regard to any of my actions. Cheers and kindly do not pursue your interesting view of "providing a citation" here in future. Apparently your mileage varies substantially. Collect (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Writing disability is not limited to Wikipedia editors

Yahoo News: Plane carried 200kgs of lithium-ion batteries that were packaged according to international guidelines and fruits.

An amazing concept.

And in the past week the AP had to issue a spelling correction ... on an article about a spelling bee.

One can not make this stuff up. Collect (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources

In [10], you edit summarize "'abruptly' is not in the source." Were you being dishonest or sloppy? Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The source quotes a spokesperson with an explanation for the closure. When such an explanation is given it is reasonable to mention that reason given.

A spokesman for the Deen family, Jaret Kellers, issued a statement saying Hiers closed the restaurant "to explore development options for the waterfront property on which the restaurant is located." Kellers said no specific plans have been made yet.

is fairly clear. In such a case, it is clear that the "abrupt closure" was foreseen by those discussing the future use of the property. YMMV. As for accusations of editorial dishonesty -- I suggest that you know better than to play that sort of game with anyone by now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

In [11], you edit summarize "'abruptly' is not in the source." Is "abrupt closure" in the source? Hipocrite (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Last I checked "abruptly" is an adverb. YMMV, but the use of that word as an adverb where a reason is given for the closure is potentially misleading to readers, the close was "all at once" ("abrupt" in that single sense) but not necessarily unplanned at all ... I had looked for the adverb where the claim was concerned, and found, instead, a statement that it may well have been planned for some time ("discussions" implies that there were "discussions"). Do you suggest we should remove the bit that discussions occurred? Do we have a source which says no one had been informed of the closure ahead of time? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

So a reliable source describes the closure as "abrupt", but you object to stating that it happened "abruptly"? Your argument here doesn't make sense. MastCell ^Talk 01:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

What the reliable source said was that a spokesperson made a statement about the property - and I trust you agree that it is important to mention that fact. Cheers. whatever actual point you wish to have made is made, and anything further is puerile. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello!

Dear User:Collect, I thought of you and decided I would come to your talk page and say hi! I hope you're doing well! With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your post - Collect (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Why it is important that sources explicitly support contentious claims:

consider:

Admiration of Putin

Gnarph stated that Putin is "the world leader I most admire".

versus

View of Putin

When asked which leaders he admired, Gnarph said "As an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin. ... Not that I approve of him politically."

Guess which one is actually supported by the source? There is boundless enthusiasm on the part of some editors to make people they dislike appear as bad as possible, and those they admire, as saint like as possible. That is why WP:BLP is important and must not be cast aside, no matter how evil or saintly a person is. Collect (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Gun control

Just when I thought we were making progress... Ugh... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Ken Ham. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.

This message is to inform you directly that IMO your repeated contention of material in the lead of Ken Ham is disruptive. This is my opinion and I am sure you disagree, you are welcome to. I support the sometimes contentious process of reaching consensus and every editor's right to participate. I feel your actions have been disruptive but I may not be correct. Best wishes. MrBill3 (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Refactoring comments on talk pages is the "disruption" and your warning here is ill-suited to Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Ken Ham, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. This edit (diff) was inappropriate. There is ongoing discussion on talk page that needs to be resolved first. There have been proposals made, the current content was edited by an admin while the page was protected etc. It would seem from your experience editing WP you should know better already. MrBill3 (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Um -- try noting that templating regulars and berating them for attempts to find a consensus solution is less than helpful and you are cordially asked never to post on this user talk page again. And, in case you did not notice it, I am a participant on that talk page which you appear to regard as your own personal fiefdom at this point. Begone. Collect (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:TALK which includes:

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.

To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.

Template:Hidden archive top

This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.

WP:Refactoring

Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.

Collect (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

/* */ new section

Reporting some contentious facts while selectively hiding others is a neutrality concern, that wouldn't exist if you accurately quoted the references available, and which is different from the decision about whether or not the nudity should reported. I've used the exact tag that I meant, so stop removing it. Diego (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Jason Russell

You are on 3RR over there. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And noting that the person used a tag he clearly could not intend to use is what? His issue is "facts" and he used a POV tag -- I daresay that since I pointed it out to him on his UT page he should understand why we do not add duplicate tags to entire articles and also to individual sections. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I like a good debate

Hey Collect, I like a good debate, and I will be first to concede when my arguments are proven wrong. Just I ask you to WP:AGF, and help keeping a collegial editing environment by avoiding seeing others are partisan/fringe/POV pusher/etc. It is more fun when we see others as well-intended. You can try this little trick: smile before you start a reply ... It does help (too much seriousness is a recipe for stress). Cwobeel (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The sources for Cruz not being a "real American" are partisan and fringe. [12] is one example -- saying that Cruz cannot renounce Canadian citizenship because he can not prove he is a US citizen. (The second part is crucial – Cruz’s only claim to U.S. citizenship through his mother – but it is also hearsay) which I regard as the epitome of WP:FRINGE. [13] Another, more valid, explanation is that Ted Cruz doesn't have proof he's an American citizen. This is all the same bit as the people who wanted to debar McCain because he was born in the Canal Zone. Alas -- I tend to think people pushing fringe political positions may have non-NPOV motivations, just like those who pushes the "dog incident" into a major set of articles on Wikipedia, etc. And those who pushed calling Joe an "illegal plumber" and "plumber's helper" or "plumber's ass" etc. YMMV. Collect (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have never argued that Cruz is not American, so I don't know what are you arguing here. As of today, Cruz has dual citizenship (Canadian and American), which means just that. He was born in Canada to an American citizen (her mother), and as such he is a natural born citizen as per the Natural-born-citizen clause:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to foreign parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[14]

Cwobeel (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The only issue, is that according to the law, [15]:

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

The requirement is that Cruz mother had to be physically present in the US for 10 years for his son rafael to qualify as a US citizen. As there are no sources that state that Cruz mother was not present in the US, then more likely than not, Cruz is eligible to run for President. Given the brouhaha about Obama's own place of brith and citizenship, this subject, although contentious, I'd think is not going to disappear from the news until fully clarified. Cwobeel (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So far, the arguments seem even fringier than the birthers - and I see no policy-based reason for Wikipedia to help promote such silly season speculations. And the years in the US applies to Cruz, whose mother appears to have been in the US since he was four, fully qualifying him for being here (by the time he reached the age of 19 she had pretty certainly been in the US for at least 14 years, well above the 10 years in the cite given). It has nothing to do with the mother being here since her age of 14 <g> but applies to the age of the child. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

yeah, agree. Nothing there, just that this is not going to go away from the news cycle until it is official that he renounced his Canadian citizenship, I guess (which btw, will require Cruz to prove he is a US citizen, per Canadian law) Cwobeel (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It depends on whether a bureaucrat decides to make an ass of himself (see WP:Tiptibism -- if a person is sworn in as a US Senator, one can safely believe that the US Government believes him to be a US citizen. Collect (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Right. Only a completely ignorant half-wit would question the citizenship of a sitting U.S. Senator. No Republican deserves to be treated with such contempt! MastCell ^Talk 02:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I have never questioned citizenship of anyone really -- ever. No matter who they are, race, creed, colour, gender, economic or social beliefs. Period. IIRC, Paul only had to say Civis romanus sum. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

3RR

I am fully aware of 3RR, and you should learn how to count before placing warnings on talk pages. Cwobeel (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

1. [16] 03:40 17 April (added Canada)
2. [17] 23:18 16 April (added Canada)
3. [18] 15:24 16 April (added Calgary, Alberta)
4. [19] 3:49 16 April (added "Canada")

Looks like 4RR in 24 hours from here -- and you think I do not know how to count? Unless you wish to Wikilawyer the simple count shown here? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:HJ Mitchell counts as well as I do, it seems. And, as I noted, found two were tangoing. Collect (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Gentle protest

Hi Collect. People are often banned from Wikipedia for trying to make a point in the voice of Wikipedia. And you suggested that I have done so smack dab in the middle of an arbitration case. Please be really really sure before you phrase your comments this way. I have replied to you at the RFC. If we end up disagreeing about article content, I hope that we can at least agree about each other editing in good faith. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I would point out my general esteem for ArbCom at this point <g>. Collect (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I already knew that, and am not unsympathetic to that view. Thanks for your comments at the RFC, and I have just replied to your most recent, posing a question for you (which you can't miss because it has three bold question marks at the end). I'm still uncertain if you really think that I'm trying to use Wikipedia's voice to make a point, and if so what that point might be. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I am only desirous that Wikipedia's voice not be used as a sledgehammer on any topic, wheresoever located in the project. I commend WP:PIECE for your perusal. Collect (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I entirely agree in principle, it's the application to present circumstances that is problematic. That the check-against-tyranny argument is not confined to the United States is manifestly clear from each one of the four cited sources, never mind all four in combination, so I am having difficulty understanding why saying so involves me using a sledgehammer. Maybe you don't believe that statement by me did involve a sledgehammer; I really don't know, because you have not been clear.

Alternatively, perhaps you think that the only use of the sledgehammer was to disclaim any statement about "traction". The object there was to try and be clear, to avoid accusations of misrepresenting sources, to reflect the fact that the four sources all indicate lack of traction, et cetera. There may have been suboptimal phrasing, but there was no sledgehammer. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

For an article to use Wikipedia's voice about "traction" requires reliable sources making the claim - simple. Collect (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect, are you saying that you would be fine with this in the article: "In modern times, the check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights has not been entirely confined to the United States"? I'm fine with that. The problem is that some other editors at another article pointed out that all four of these sources show that the argument did not get much traction in those four respective countries, so do you think we need to somehow take account of that fact too, without undue verbosity?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Drop the "entirely" as it is a bit problematic. And so far I have not seen any "traction" sourcing at all. Collect (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, suppose we say "In modern times, the check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights has not been confined to the United States". That's literally quite true, but it would also seem to imply something that is not true: i.e., that the argument is substantial outside the United States. We have no sourcing that indicates it's substantial outside the U.S., so don't we need to modify the sentence somehow?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It only implies what it states directly -- that somewhere outside the US the claim has been raised. Nothing more. It asserts nothing about "substantiality" and I suggest you ask a total outsider (not even on Wikipedia) how they would interpret the statement. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, well, it's a close question in my opinion, and I assure you that the phraseology that I selected was merely to prevent implications and/or inferences that are not warranted by the cited sources, without any intent on my part to make a point or the like. Thanks for your willingness to discuss it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI: your note on my note

Did you think I said your version was inferior to the great big long version? No. I said it was (much) inferior to Viriditas' version. This version. But, you know, never mind. I've had it with people who "reply" irrelevantly to me in that thread and who care nothing for my words. Life's too short. I'm done there and also here. Bishonen | talk 23:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

What I found in situ was the "long version" and my attempt was to have the wording absolutely comply with the sources given. Had I "chosen" Viriditas' version, I would not have been doing what I felt was proper -- to see what the sources directly stated and to use them in that manner. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 4, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick(Talk) 15:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

3RR

I count 2. Koncorde (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

1. [20] 15:22 20 April
2. [21] 16:14 20 April
3. [22] 17:41 20 April (same section - any edit where you have reverted still counts as a revert per WP:EW)

Not to mention another 11 consecutive edits some of which also clearly are reverts, but not in that same section. WP:EW does not give a pass on it being in a different section than your other two reverts by the way. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.

I count three - no matter how you dice it at all. Collect (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

[23] is one of those added edits -- and is specifically on the topic at issue -- care to assert that it is not a revert under WP:EW? Collect (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber Revert

Regarding your revert of my edit on the page, what other pages (if any) include both singer-songwriter AND musician in opening sentence? Of the many articles on singers I've seen, the vast majority do not use "musician" since it is covered within "recording artist" or "singer" or "singer-songwriter" regardless of instruments used. It seems redundant to have both. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Try John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Tomoyasu_Hotei, Sugizo, Jordan Pundik, and many other thousands on Wikipedia. Like do a search on "singer songwriter musician" in articlespace and see the count -- the software says over 30,000 hits in articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There are articles which include it, but it is still a redundancy. Just saying. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Many singers (possibly most) do not play instruments -- I fail to see the "redundancy." Being a singer does not make one a musician. Really. Collect (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Redundant since musician tends to be used for referring to essentially anything involving music be it singing, guitars, drums, lyricwriting, composing, piano, etc. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Common usage is that a musician is a person who makes music per se. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

In any case, most articles I've seen just use one or the other, though I could be wrong on frequency by article count. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

30,000 articles can't be wrong. Collect (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Voting system

If the RfC heads off an edit war because the outcome is clear and respected by both sides, then great. But what if it doesn't? I've promised to respect the RfC outcome, but Schulze hasn't; and anyway there's always the possibility of "no consensus"

I hope that the RfC will be the end of this battle, one way or the other. But given the history, I think it would be naive to take that on faith. If there is going to be a problem, I'd like to start dealing with it. You're right that there's no deadline; but there's also no reason to draw things out more than necessary.

Thus, my BOLD edit there was not just a good-faith declaration of what I think is best for the encyclopedia and most in line with policy as I understand it. It was also a probe to see how Schulze would respond. If he's still in the mood to fight the issue, I think it's worthwhile to lay the groundwork for a decision that will be binding on both of us. I was consciously escalating slightly, in order to bring more attention to the issue.

I have no doubt whatever that you were acting in good faith when you reverted, and that you have no intention of getting into a protracted edit war here.

I'm going to ask Schulze to commit to respecting the RfC, however it comes out (assuming that's not "no consensus"). If he does not respond, if the majority of RfC !votes are still in favor of inclusion, I'm going to edit the page again. If that happens, I'd respectfully ask you to leave the edit for at least 24 hours, to give Schulze a chance to revert if he is going to. Homunq (࿓) 12:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I expect to respect any consensus - but meanwhile there is no deadline on this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

So there's no hurry, and if it happens again, you wouldn't have a problem waiting 24 hours before reverting? Homunq (࿓) 19:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually the waiting should be on your court -- material should never be re-added whike an RfC is ongoing. If you have re-added it already, I suggest that you self-revert until the RfC has concluded. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

By the same token, it should never be re-removed. We should both self-revert here. The net effect would be to leave the page in the same state. In all seriousness, I suggest you revert your edit. I will then do the same. Homunq (࿓) 20:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Check my edit counts on this. 1. You have put the material in 3 times now -- twice in four days, and during the RfC which is the proper dispute resolution forum in the case at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you point to any essay or policy that says not to make relevant edits during an RfC? Honest question; if there is one, I can't find it.

If there is such a policy, then: please self-revert, as two wrongs don't make a right.

If there is no such policy: please give a content-based justification for your edit, as the justification you have given so far amounts to edit warring.

I'm not claiming that my edit wasn't worse than anything you've done, in either case. I'll take responsibility for myself. If you revert, then I'll ensure my edit doesn't stand either. Homunq (࿓) 20:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE applies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Counterfactual

Just to clarify, the "counterfactual" bit is supported by footnote 36 here. This counterfactual bit is in the article now, though the edit proposed by LB's RFC would remove it (along with a lot of other stuff).

I think that, in your valiant efforts to make WP neutral, you may be spread a bit thin.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"Counterfactual history" means that they are explicitly backing something that did not occur in real history. Better terms are surely to be sought. The footnote, by the way, does not use the term "counterfactual history" and says the problem is that there was no evidence that Jews were well-armed before they were barred from gun ownership. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that source discusses "reimagining a past", and that's what you have to do in order to postulate that an armed Jewish population could have inhibited the Nazi onslaught. Anyway, I do generally admire your work at Wikipedia, very much. There is a huge danger of Wikipedia being a propaganda operation that only describes arguments that the hierarchy here likes. I'm not quite sure if anything can be done about it, but it surely is a danger. A big one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

the only actual statement is makes is that Jews were not well-armed. In such a case, we are far better off saying what the footnote actually says than linking to an article which is not exactly on point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It states more than that, Collect. It specifically discusses a "counterfactual", and mentions "reimagining a past". This is a big reason why historians cannot make firm pronouncements about this: it requires imagination about how history might have unfolded. Anyway, it looks like it's all going to be deleted anyway, to make room for LB's version.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It refers not to "counterfactual history" but to "counterfactual argument" which is a different thing entirely. Alas -- I tend to think we are far better off using what a source actually states than what someone "knows" it must mean. Collect (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"Reimagining a past" is the essence of counterfactual history, so there is no doubt about what that author was referring to. But like I said, it's all pretty much irrelevant now. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The footnote was specifically for "counterfactual argument" and not "counterfactual history." The difference between the right word and almost the right word is the difference betweem "lightning" and "lightning bug." (Twain) Collect (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, we are not constrained at Wikipedia to only quote what the sources say, and we can instead rephrase. There are few clear answers to matters of counterfactual history, which is why I am not surprised that historians have been reluctant to rule out the notion that Hitler's gun control policies may have made a difference, or that the weak gun rights in other countries facilitated Hitler's conquest of them. Some editors (and arbitrators) would like us all to believe that historians have debunked these theories, but actually it is extremely difficult to debunk a counterfactual.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually -- we are constrained to abide by what the sources say. See WP:V. Collect (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, and we apparently disagree about what this one says.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(od) where the source says "counterfactual" "argument" then one may reasonably postulate that the comment is about "counterfactual" "argument." Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect, counterfactual history always involves counterfactual argument. The source explicitly says that this argument involves "reimagining a past" which is the very definition of counterfactual history. I am willing to grant that you honestly disagree with me, but please accept that my view on this is honestly held. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

the source uses the specific term "argument" and thus that is what Wikipedia ought to use here. We use what the sources actually state, not what we "know" they really mean. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want us to verbatim parrot what the sources says, then why not parrot the words "reimagining the past"? The Jews were not armed, so it requires reimagining the past to conclude that such arms would have made any significant difference. That is not to say that they would not have made a significant difference, only that imagination is required. (The same sort of thing applies to the neighboring countries where gun rights were not well-established, so we would have to imagine whether such gun rights would have made a difference by inhibiting conquest.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The whole basis of Wikipedia is that we do "parrot what the sources say." Read WP:V etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

When there is controversy about rephrasing a source in our own words, I do support parroting. I am just kind of amazed that you are evidently not willing to parrot "re-imagining history", and that you dispute that "counterfactual" refers to counterfactual history. I don't really like the term "counterfactual history", because it sounds pejorative, and a better synonym is "speculative history", but in any event there is no doubt that's what the cited author was referring to. Anyway, ArbCom has decided upon a whitewash, so none of our discussion here is relevant. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Red links :(

When are red links of value? (re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Scott_%28sheriff%29&diff=606026343&oldid=606017860) --TheCockroach (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"Red Links" are of use if and only if the topic is likely to have its own article in the immediate future. If one is writing an article, sometimes making the "red links" makes sense, but it is really pretty rare. Collect (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Nature of indictment against Michael Grimm

Normally I'd be wary of including speculation about the nature of criminal charges. However, since it was the New York Times--which is as reliable and accurate as you can get--I'm a little more comfortable mentioning it in the article. Thoughts? HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 17:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The charges appear to not relate to any political activity AFAICT. Collect (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Right ... which is why I retitled the investigation section as "Federal criminal investigation." HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 18:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT, there is no sign of any indictment for anything political so far. Collect (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it would still have a lot of bearing on his role in the House if he were convicted on those charges alone. Under House rules, anyone convicted of a felony, politically-related or not, isn't allowed to vote or take part in committee work until the Ethics Committee can look into the matter. Bill Janklow of South Dakota was forced to resign from the House after being convicted of vehicular manslaughter. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 18:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The charge about the restaurant is likely not going to be considered by the Ethics Committee -- they were only looking into the campaign finance charge. If there is no indictment on that, then Grimm is likely in fair shape. Did you read about the restaurant issue? Collect (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I may have to review the House rules ... as I understood it, ANY felony conviction effectively suspends a congressman's voting and committee rights until an Ethics Committee review. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Only within a committee -- but the precedent is that they remain in Congress until any final appeals are done. I have a strange feeling that the case is weak here, as Grimm lost his own money in the restaurant business and 80% of restaurants fail. Collect (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• kindly note that you have now exceeded WP:3RR on Michael Grimm (politician). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Kindly note that insertion of FUCKING quotes violates WP:BLP/N. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Homunq (࿓) 19:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This will not change my position on Voting Systems, and is quite likely to boomerang on you on that issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

1. I'm sorry I did that. There were a few points raised in the discussion that I hadn't realized — the unsubstantiated secondhand nature of the quote, and the age of some of the edits (I just used the tool and didn't realize it didn't take care of that part). Given those points, there really is nothing substantive in my report.

2. Still, I didn't think it would change your mind on an unrelated article (in fact, I realized that if anything, the reverse was more likely). That was not and is not my concern. Homunq (࿓) 03:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Formal edit warring notice prior to WP:3RRN

Please stop edit warring at Talk:List of Bohemian Club members. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stop violating WP:RFC. Collect (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

US Plotocracy

Half of the plutocracy page is dedicated to the United States. I have added a source. I don't see why it does not deserve to be mentioned in examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Convince folks on the talk page -- your edit war is not impressing anyone at all. Collect (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I added what was requested. Those are legitimate references. Why are these being deleted? You wanted me to talk on the talk page. State a reason for deleting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Again -- READ THE POLICIES - especially WP:RS and note that "new theories" do not automatically get placed into articles, especially when the sources do not back the claim made (that the US is a "plutocracy.". Cheers. Now kindly avoid posting here again. Collect (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I have also reported you for repeatedly deleting things on the page. It is not a new theory if half the page is dedicated to that theory. Kindly stop deleting things based on your own personal opinion. If you have a counter-argument, be constructive and post it. The sources clearly back the idea of money running politics in the United States. All 8 of them.2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As you may not have noticed, I am not the only person finding that your edits are a problem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey on Bohemian Club talk

I recommend you rephrase your vote from: "Keep such material out of the article" to "Remove this material from the article." People may assume that your first (bolded) word means you support keeping this stuff in the article. Steeletrap (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. Collect (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Donald Sterling

You are currently at four edits, and that is one too many. Please see Talk:Donald Sterling. As for "don't template the regulars", there is another side to that argument: some, have argued you have been here too long already, but you certainly have been here long enough to do this right.

Furthermore, WP:BLP mandates the deletion of contentious material that is unsupported by RS. The rules for inclusion may be derived from what is excluded.

All that is not mandated to be deleted can be included, and all that is allowed to be included should not be deleted; BLP therefore assures that there should be no deletion of contentious material with a reliable source. Edit summaries should not include contentiousness as a sole rationale. Edits should not be made on this basis alone. Discussions should not include contentiousness as a sole argument. Anarchangel (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Allegations that a living person is a prostitute seems to me to be a "contentious claim about a living person" and no strong source that the person is a prostitute has been given. Prostitution is an actual crime, and BLP does not allow such. Cheers. File at ANEW if you truly feel accusing a person of being a prostitute is proper in a BLP abot another person. Collect (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I concede the argument over Castro due to it falling foul of the overreaching WP:CRIME. I see no likelihood that I will be convinced to return it to the article.

Castro was a sentence out of four or so paragraphs of the material you and Twokindsofpork reverted, and you have provided no substantiation for those actions, at the end of which you were at Four edits. The onus is on those who add the material to add reliable sources, but you deleted material that already HAD reliable sources. I have already waited much longer than a reasonable amount of time for a rationale that might explain this, but none has been forthcoming; I will wait another reasonable amount of time for a response to this warning before restoring the material. Anarchangel (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You were also at four edits on the Michael Grimm (politician) page on the 26th

Same page, four edits on the 28th. Anarchangel (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

And you saw that WP:BLP is a strong policy and that your apparent misunderstanding of that absolute policy may be troubling to many. Collect (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if you wish to make unfounded claims of edit war - there is no need for you to stalk this page or my contribution history. I assure you that WP:HARASS can absolutely come into play. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

More care and attention to edit count would seem to be indicated, especially as there has been no indication given in any of your responses, and obviously your absence of response on the issue, that you are aware of your EW or see fit to check, even to take the word of another editor. I am sorry that you feel harassed; I was only hoping to avoid AN/EW. Anarchangel (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

More attention to WP:BLP would prevent your repeated posting here. Your lack of notice of my frequent use of article talk pages is elide by your apparent assertion that I do not use them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Um Anarchangel -- since the SAME BASIC REPORT was already made on the SAME DAMN ARTICLE and I told you that above, anf the report was found to be invalid on the grounds of clear WP:BLP violations, this is now plain and simple harassment. Cheers. Be gone. Collect (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Uncalled for mass revert

This revert [24] was over the top. If you have a problem with the Nazi gun control part, revert that. The other edits were unrelated to that, but part of an editing cycle I'm doing with Scalhotrod. (Also, if you didn't notice, he deleted the old Nazi gun control material completely [25] - I only replaced it with the new material. [26]) Lightbreather (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You made a grossly improper close of an RfC and cited that close as your rationale for mass edits. As you seem not to respect the RfC process, you ought not complain when someone undoes your "close". Collect (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Scal made nine edits; I made nine (10 if you count one minor edit). On only the LAST one - adding the new Nazi GC material - did my edit summary mention his bold removal of the Nazi GC material. If you didn't like those edits, respond to those edits. Lightbreather (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You closed your own RfC. And then made a "bold edit" which per BRD is absolutely revertible, which means the ball is in your court on the talk page, not here. Unless you have strong reason to post here, don't. Collect (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Your recent Thomas Sowell edit

Hey, buddy, just wondering why you basically changed my revision of what was a simplistic and factually inaccurate summary regarding Thomas Sowell's book, "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" back to nearly the same thing. I promise you, I have read the book a number of times and it has a lot more in it than just stereotypes regarding race and education. One of the most important aspects of the book, to be sure, is focused upon debunking the myth that what is today called "ghetto culture" is uniquely "black culture" but I did not want to downplay the other aspects of the book. So, how can we come to an agreement? Should we expand the summary to be more in depth, in an attempt to give a more clear and detailed summary of what the book is about? I had originally planned to do this, since the book is far too complex to be summarized in a single sentence, but I didn't want to turn it into a book report. I'll leave your revision up until we can come to an agreement on this.Execrated (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Quoting a source may be a copyright violation. My edit was, as far as I can tell, an accurate indicationof the contents of the book. Collect (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The best thing to do then, per WP:Quote and WP:NFCCEG would be to fully quote the sentence and maintain the citation. Condensing the book down to merely stereotypes about race and education is akin to condensing Tolstoy's 'War and Peace' down to being about war. If you want to avoid quoting the book's description directly, then we must still address the fact that the book is not about a singular subject, but about varied subjects and each should be mentioned. Your edit, however, was not an accurate indication of the contents of the book, but rather an accurate indication of one major part of the book and one more minor part of the book without indicating that the book also involved other subjects.Execrated (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Your choice -- but using "blurbs" about a book is an iffy shortcut when alternate language, IMO, s concise and accurate. Collect (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well the blurb in question is much longer than a single sentence, and is also the most reliable way of ascertaining what a book is about. As I suggested, if you don't want to use a direct quote perhaps we can come to an agreement on how to best summarize what the book is about. A simplified summary, however, is not a concise or accurate summary if it excludes important subjects covered by the book in question. My suggestion would be to word it similarly to this: "A collection of essays including challenges to long-held stereotypes regarding race, slavery, education and the history of what he terms 'ghetto culture.'" We could maintain the citation so that it's clear we're not merely stating what "we" feel the book is about. Let me know what you think.Execrated (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

In general, my position is "less is more." "A series of essays on education, culture and race, challenging some of the stereotypes he sees."  ? Collect (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

SPA

Hi. I've already posted a question to Ellen about the edit. Rather than letting this comment escalate emotions, I suggest waiting for her response. IOW, how about reverting the SPA remark? (Also, I asked the IPs if they were Ellen.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There was an AN/EW report on that IP - I do not think anything could "escalate Ellen's emotions further" on this topic. And the odds are 10,000 to one against any person answering your query in the affirmative. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You know, there are 3 IPs that recently edited there. I don't think the repeat !vote IP'er was involved in the AN/EW (and I'm not going to check). But you are probably right about the odds and about the escalation of emotions. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

redistricting

I !voted with support for your proposal, but in order for the RFC to carry any water later, I would think one would need to advertise it more widely. Although the prctical number of articles affected is small, the theoretical number is quite high, and you may face stubborn opposition from those in the rut. This may be of enough visibility to add to WP:CENT but certainly at least various political projects. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I placed in two categories -- perhaps it should also be neutrally noted at BLP/N? Going there. Collect (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk Gun Control

I appreciate your clarification in the discussion, but did you mean to delete my comments in an entirely different section? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not -- the system sometimes does it without notification of any conflict -- for which I fully apologize. Thanks. Please restore the post lest I goof up again - and use a summary that it was accidental entirely Collect (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, no worries, I figured it was something like that... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Gracias

Thanks for dropping by that proceeding, Collect. I miss the old-fashioned encyclopedias that people used to buy, containing no committees, no policies, no dispute resolution, no disputes, no BLP violations, and no danger for eyesight.  :-). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

stubbornness

You may see stubbornness, but that is WP:NOT VANDALISM. I would not use the term. Also, WP:DONTBITE. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The person said the word was not in the source. It is. Such claims do, indeed, "verge on vandalism", alas. Collect (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The person did not say "the word" was not in the source. His edit summary was "not in the sources", which refers to the gist of the two words he deleted that were conflating labor unions with the corporate and business interest groups criticized by Giles and Page, as per the two paragraphs from the paper that I have posted on the article Talk page.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The sentence was about the contents of a specific report. Where the term is specifically in that source, removal is outré. Collect (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't speak French.

The text that you have reverted to misrepresents the meaning of the text of the source. I don't see where making recourse to some purported policy technicality overrides that simple fact.

In other words, your edit states in the voice of the encyclopedia that the source asserts that labor unions are responsible for a drift toward oligarchy, when that is not what the source says, quite the opposite, in fact, as I have made an effort to convey on the article Talk page.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Mainly because that is what the source states. It does say the POV of unions is more closely allied to that of the populace, but that does not alter the inclusion of unions in the list of influential membership organizations. Policy does not say "use what we like in the source, and disregard what we do not like because it conflicts with what we know." Collect (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, since I never wrote that the source asserts that labor unions are responsible for a drift toward oligarchy it would be kind of nice if you noted that I never wrote any such thing, nor did the edit state any such thing. Hard enough to deal with what I write, but defending what I never wrote is a tad much. Collect (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Without taking an opinion on the content dispute, it's wrong to call good faith edits or imply that they are vandalism, however wrong-headed they appear. Regarding the content dispute I'll be glad to take a look. Collect and I have often disagreed on the details of sourcing but he is right to take a firm line on it. Listen to what he is saying, please, rather than imputing badness. Good dose of AGF all round, please. Sorry, Collect for barging into your talk page like this. Let me know if you would like any other support, or if you would prefer that I bugger off and leave you to it. --John (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, I said "verging on" as the word removed is specifically in the source, and I feel once a source is used, we can not elide what it says to fit any version of what is the "truth." And I am always glad for polite company here for sure. Collect (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The sentence reverted to (with argumentative, dismissive and condescending edit summaries) is

Some researchers have said the US may be drifting towards a form of oligarchy, through the influence of corporations, the wealthy, unions and other special interest groups.

If you don't see how that sentence instates a causal relationship between labor unions and the "drifting towards a form of oligarchy", and establishes an equivalence of influence thereto between corporations and labor unions, then others will have to evaluate the scenario, because I have spent more time and effort on this sentence than one could reasonably assume should be necessary.-- --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The matter is fully discussed at the article talk page, and your claims about the edit summaries are nugatory at best. Collect (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I posted at the article talk page. The authors mentioned unions as one class of special interest group. And states that SIGs as a whole are an issue. That the authors imply the unions are "right" (that is, their political positions accord with what the authors say is the "common man") does not diminish their existence as SIGs, and it is the confluence of all of them that the study deals with. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well then, I enjoin you both to forgive each other for your mutual misunderstandings. Read the quote on my user page. Let go of the animosity. I have read the talk page positions and you are both clearly intelligent and well-intentioned people. What you are experiencing is a difference of opinion about how sources should be summarised. This sort of disagreement is usually solved via 3O, DR, RfC. It isn't worth either of you losing your cool over. Accept that each of you has the best interests of the article in mind, by their own lights, and progress from there. Continue on article talk. I think I can usefully mediate as I can see merit in both positions, so I can help get some other editors involved. That'd be better than anybody getting upset. In my opinion. --John (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • John is quite right. I posted a note to Collect simply as a reminder about courteous edit summaries and no-biting of new comers. My gosh, how could such a gentle reminder generate such a discourse!? Collect, this is your talk page, I recommend hatting the thread. – S. Rich (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)