Just a note to say thanks for dealing with those edits. It's a shame to watch this happen just as it's up for GA. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Please review this explanation of this edit. Please consider discussing on talk page rather than reverting. I understand the sensitivity of BLP. But I do not think this is so clear-cut a matter as to require summary reversion. There are enough WP:TRUTH-seekers haunting these articles. As long-established editors, let's try to show them how collaboration works. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 17:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, Collect. I saw you made some small adjustments to the Licensed products section of the Cracker Barrel article, and since then I've discussed a few additional changes with User:Jerem43 (Jeremy) who has agreed to two changes: the new deal is not for frozen foods but packaged meats, and a sentence about Kraft's use of the brand for cheese should be simplified. Jeremy has said OK to the changes and encouraged me to implement them, however because I've made the requests on Cracker Barrel's behalf, I'd like to avoid doing so. Would you be willing to consider doing so? WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 15:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I've restored my edits to Marco Rubio that you reverted. All of the edits used the sources correctly, improved sources, or fixed erroneous information. If you would like to specifically challenge any of the current sentences, please state your case on the talk page. Thank you. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 02:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Killer Chihuahua 18:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Collect, you mentioned on the TPM talk page about it being okay to use an organization's website when it talks about itself/mission. What about using a BLP's website or even something like this in a bio? [2]. It's a 'viewpoint' piece where she mentions her background. Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 18:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
You responded quickly and helpfully to my posting on the BLP noticeboard regarding the
Fred Hiatt article. I'm reaching out to you again because the principle editor of the page has since rewritten a substantial portion of the article to incorporate some -- though not all -- of the text you wrote without maintaining the spirit or tone of the text, and reinserting much of the text s/he wrote that you edited out. Once again I think there are NPOV issues, especially as the partisan name-calling (one way or the other) makes up the bulk of the article, now, out of proportion with the informational content therein. On top of that, Wormcast's sense of ownership of the text is yet again preventing the article from growing organically towards a more encyclopedic, balanced article. I'm at a loss for how to proceed without turning this into a pissing contest, if you'll forgive the phrase. Any advice or help you could furnish would be gratefully accepted. I'll watch for your response here,
Thanks,
Joehjoeh (
talk) 21:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Possible compromise resolution | |
The Dispute Resolution Noticboard volunteer, Noleander has offered a compromise solution here. Please take a minute to add your response as to whether you agree or disagree with this solution. There are no "ground rule" limitations but please consider using brevity if commenting . Amadscientist ( talk) 00:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC) |
Collect, I liked your suggestion the other day about what to rename the genocide article. But I have suggested a tweak for readability. Do you care to comment about this edit suggestion? I haven't initiated a new move request yet because I would like to get the wording right. Thank you, Crtew ( talk) 09:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bush Derangement Syndrome is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yworo ( talk) 18:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 09:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Did you mean to revert El Heuro instead of me? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Collect! I actually have an account (I think we've crossed paths once or twice; nothing really memorable, positive or negative, as I recall), but I've decided to give IP editing a try for a while. As a side effect, I can't complete the AfD nomination process, since I can't create the AfD page itself as an IP editor. I've been looking at the Entertainment in the 16th century page, which looks like quite the mess; based on the title, it seems way too broad in scope (though naturally the article limits itself to Europe, itself a problem), it wanders off topic, the sources are questionable at best (one, as best I can tell, was created by third-graders!). I don't think there's anything worthwile in the content to be moved to a more appropriate title, and without that, I don't think there's any reason to keep it. If you have a moment, could you take a look, and if you agree, do the honors? Thanks! 68.48.34.96 ( talk) 17:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
As a regular contributor to RSN, whose opinions I respect, but don't always agree with, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Colombo.2C_Rose.2C_Fight_Back_Legal_Abuse:_How_to_Protect_Yourself_From_Your_Own_Attorney. At this point, one uninvolved person has commented, but I prefer to have more than one uninvolved person comment under the circumstances, so as to get a clear consensus one way or the other. Thanks. Fladrif ( talk) 22:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I want to clear things up, because we've both been here a long time and shouldn't be having this much trouble communicating with each other. Here is my side of the story:
Thanks for your comment at RSN related to the sole source for this article. I've gone ahead and filed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legal_abuse. Fladrif ( talk) 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lisa Lavie. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 11:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about clobbering your changes on the Orson Scott Card article. I'm not sure if I just didn't notice the "editing an old version" warning or if the wiki simply failed to notify me that there was an edit conflict, but one way or another, I thought I was editing the most recent version only to discover in my Watchlist that there had been an intervening change. I reinstated most of your edits with the exception of the "however" in the lead, which, after my partial reversion, I thought was necessary to highlight OSC's apparent change in position from the one in the preceding sentence. – RobinHood70 talk 16:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lindsay Lohan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 12:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charlize Theron. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 13:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for removing undue weight. Well, I didn't realize that "arrest" thing should have been easy to write about, as long as too much is omitted. I can't find a barnstar for you, so... there. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see Trudeau's talk page for further discussion since I am not interested in an edit war. Also the undue weight does not seem to imply here. Krazytea( talk) 20:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 14:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
We seem to have this situation resolved for a month or so and another user arrives and posts on this trivial incident starting the cycle over again. Thank you for the help. Can you monitor this article for repeat offenders? Politics555 ( talk) 23:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this piece, if this incident is merely a one time unverified claim in only one of Fleming's 33 sandwich shops he has owned for many years, and Fleming was not there, and there is no evidence that the incident results from any business or political policy of Fleming, is it worthy of inclusion in a BLP? Joapedia ( talk) 14:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, that being the case (and considering the campaign season is over), and nothing ever developed of this situation, should it be removed? With your experience, you would know better than me. Thanks. Joapedia ( talk) 03:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you. Joapedia ( talk) 12:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Need your help again. My removal of the content was reversed with the weakest of explanations. Joapedia ( talk) 14:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kurban Said. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 15:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the Lisa Lavie AfD. I'm asking various editors for constructive comments or explanations on my talk page: User talk:RCraig09#Questions. Thanks, from RCraig09 ( talk) 15:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
"Yep -- it is kind of hard to get less than zero percent from a fundraiser!" Actually, no. Remember, the fund raising company needs to be paid - even if it's also a non profit, it still pays wages to its employees. If the people dialing phones can't get donations to cover their time, a fundraiser could actually lose money. I'm guessing this was a contract that guaranteed that wouldn't happen. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
If anyone got a strange email from me - it was not from me - my contact list was hacked, and pernicious stuff sent to all on it. I have no idea whether I was deliberately targeted or not, but if I were, this may recur. Do not click on any links in a message purportedly from me which are from a strange domain of any sort at all, please! Collect ( talk) 01:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
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.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:George Maharis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 07:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes - I have dental problems. It turns out to be common after extended radiation treatments for cancer. If someone thinks this is a good way to dis someone, then I suggest it reflects on them quite poorly. Collect ( talk) 17:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You took part in the deciding of my ban, so I need to inform you of this appeal. It's your choice if you want to join in. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=551050869&oldid=551050508#Please_remove_my_ban. -- TheShadowCrow ( talk) 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I apologized because it seemed LBW was angry at me for some reason. That was before he started making further accusations against me on the talk pages of other users. I took this as an indication that he was not willing to compromise. I knew before I apologized that I had been in the right and that LBW was guilty of TBAN violations: I apologized only on the off-chance that I had accidentally seemed confrontational and caused him some stress. His later actions proved me wrong. Further, there was nothing punitive about his block. It was preventative. Let's not speak of this any more, okay? Cheers, and happy editing! Konjakupoet ( talk) 12:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Indian poets. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 08:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you have contributed to the article, your involvement in the discussion may be helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Taking_stock. Cheers.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jesus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 12:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Collect!
Since we seem to disagree more often than we agree, please take a look at User:Stephan_Schulz#Collected_ramblings, in particular the third bullet. I usually strongly try not to shape my arguments to a desired conclusion, but rather to arrive at my conclusions based on the strength of evidence and argument (and I was quite happy when I was able to derive your square root of sampled class size estimate of the standard deviation from the definition of standard deviation and variance - I didn't remember that particular rule of thumb from my class on probability theory). But I will happily attack (what I see as) faulty reasoning, not matter if I like or dislike the claim made. I really have no particular opinion on, not interest in, the size of a tiny and mostly harmless religious group. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 14:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Noted. Though I disagree it is an edit war at this point; he was bold, I reverted. He then broke process by reverting me, and I reverted again informing him of this. Should the edit war continue, that was the opening salvo, but if it doesn't then that was merely a corrective action. -- Golbez ( talk) 20:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Golbez above asserts it is "tautological" that a country has sovereignty over itself. Which appears to say that "that which a country has sovereignty over is part of that country." Which is the crux here ... is having sovereignty over a territory the same as owning it? In the case of a nation holding sovereignty (not "trusteeship" or any leasehold or treaty otherwise) over an area, is it wrong to say the area is part of that country? Anyone please respond - but not by parsing minutiae or egg yolks <g>. Thanks.
Collect (
talk) 13:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Having sovereignty over a territory is the same as owning it. This is basic. What is sovereignty if not that? In the case of a nation holding sovereignty over an area, the area is clearly part of that country. This shouldn't be controversial. Capitalismojo ( talk) 02:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Please don't keep edit warring to place the disputed figure in the lead or infobox. It was an anomaly, and there are multiple objections to it on the talk page and the RSN. It is in the body of the article, which is enough. Even if not disputed, it's inappropriate to have multiple numbers in the lead – church figure v independent figure is enough. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of vegans. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 13:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Eugene Plotkin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 14:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
In an RfC/U, the requirement appears to be that two users must have the same dispute with the user in question. Does that mean, the same dispute on the same article, or does it allow for anyone with a dispute with that editor to add his dispute and certify the RfC? Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 13:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of vegetarians. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 00:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sockpuppet (Internet). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 09:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Collect,
Your defense of good stats on the Christian Science article is spot on. It also makes me feel bad because I raised the issue in the first place.
I do not understand why others don't get it, and even among those who do, that crack about elementary stat books raised my dander.
Please check out my sandbox at Centamia and see if you think any of it is worth posting. I've pretty much had it with Wikipedia but as you've sprung to the defense of good stats (which I started), I'll push on at your suggestion.
Thank you so much for introducing an iota of logic into that article. And please forgive me if this is the wrong place to tell you so. Please advise.
Centamia ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centamia ( talk • contribs) 09:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
You are the only person who took the pain to answer my query in a clear way. I think I understood the difference between the 2. Can I conclude that Southmonitor.com is not a reliable source? Benedictdilton ( talk) 03:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I've just made this comment on the moderated discussion page:
There were four editors involved in the edit war: Phoenix and Winslow, Ubikwit, Collect, and Xenophrenic. Phoenix and Winslow and Xenophrenic have agreed to not revert. I haven't seen that commitment from Collect and Ubikwit. I will let them know that if they are unwilling to agree not to revert on the sub-articles either while they are being created or after they have been moved into mainspace, then they should agree not to edit the articles at all.
You may have mentioned somewhere on the discussion page that you agree not to revert, and if so, then please point me to it. Otherwise, would you mind stating that you either agree not to revert, or you agree not to edit the sub-articles we are creating? SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion in the "Content discussion, resumed" section got out of hand, so I have closed it. A number of contributors to that discussion wandered away from commenting on the content into commenting on the contributor. I would ask that everyone make a special effort to word what they say carefully. For example: "One editor suggests that..." is picking on an editor, even if not naming them. If the point of the statement was to clarify what the use of "alleged" signifies in the article, then that is all that is needed to be stated. It can be helpful to see what guidelines there are for uses of words on Wikipedia, such as WP:ALLEGED, and to refer to these guidelines.
At this point it might be better if anyone has concerns about the behaviour of anyone else in the discussion, that they bring those concerns direct to me rather than raise them, however obliquely, on the discussion page. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy is convicted of his fraud, explain with some common sense and brain why u reverted my edit Murrallli ( talk) 14:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I replied to you on the ANI page regarding protection of Wade Robson. PP was of course, turned down. It is still getting vandalised, but apparently not "enough" to be protected. I know I'm not supposed to go from board to board asking for assistance, but I don't know how to appeal this. Can you help? Ultra Venia ( talk) 03:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kriyananda. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 10:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey Collect. I just want to leave a note about the direction the Rob Ford discussion seems to be taking. I noticed an edit to Dennis Brown's page where you refer to "political" editors, and now another where you speculate on the political motivations of contributors to that conversation. I don't know everyone on that page, but the Canadian editors I am familiar with are not "political" editors by any means. It really puts people's backs up against the wall when their motivations are questioned. This is a divisive topic, and I don't expect the current issue will be resolved smoothly, but if everyone stays focused on the content and the policies, there is a much better chance of people working together to improve our coverage of Ford. The Interior (Talk) 13:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Done. Sorry for the mistake. Casprings ( talk) 19:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tom Selleck. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 10:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alicia Silverstone. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 10:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Where's the wikichecker you used? I'd like to check mine. Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 18:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bruce Lee. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 11:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Laura Robson. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 12:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Would you know other NPOV experienced editors who would be willing to help out on the Tea Party movement article? SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your thoughts in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 15:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 12:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
|}
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alger Hiss. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 13:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Collect, are you at all technical? Do you know how to crop an image in an article? Could you take a look here: [15]. I'd appreciate it. This is regarding the admin on the ArbCom case you also commented on. I made mention of problems with that image and he's started an RfC regarding it. An editor made an excellent suggestion to crop the photo. I've no idea how to do that but perhaps you do, or you might know of someone who can do it? Malke 2010 ( talk) 19:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Collect, thank you for your help. So in stead of the Chinese embassy press release, would news article be more appropriate? For example: http://english.people.com.cn/special/fagong/1999073000A101.html This news report states Li Hongzhi is wanted in China. Is this acceptable? Bobby fletcher ( talk) 16:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Since you have over 25 edits at Talk:Mark Twain, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Derivative works and cultural references templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, There is a discussion about reliable sources and BLP issues related to Wayne Madsen [ here] if you would like to participate. I feel that you have a firm grasp of BLP issues, and would value your input although I am not at all certain you will agree with my edits. Capitalismojo ( talk) 03:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Collect, I'll work on the readability tonight and post that for you in a separate section on the moderated discussion. For now, let's just get everybody saying 'yes' for a change. Okay? Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 00:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The Tea Party lacks a central organization, and lacks specific central goals. Each group sets goals and priorities, sometimes conflicting with other groups. Some principles are widely embraced. These include a government limited in size by the Constitution, a free market economy, and governmental fiscal restraint.
It is both conservative and libertarian in part. Some focus on economic issues and taxes, limiting government size and spending. Others deal with social issues such as abortion, immigration enforcement, and health care reform. Their SuperPacs support candidates sympathetic to their goals and oppose what they call the "Republican establishment" candidates. The IRS treatment of groups with "tea party" in their names has raised some controversy.
It stresses an "originalist" view of the Constitution in its reform agenda. Amendments have been targeted by some groups for repeal or change, including the 14th, 16th, and 17th. There is support for a "Repeal Amendment" which would enable a two-thirds majority of the states to repeal federal laws, and a Balanced Budget Amendment to limit deficit spending.
The Contract from America is based on points favored in an online poll conducted by Ryan Hecker, a conservative activist. Score 13/28 which almost gets to a reasonable minimum of 30 for reading ease ("fairly difficult" in the standard). Collect ( talk) 00:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
For lurkers: This is in reference to Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion which seems sometimes to be at a horrid impasse. Collect ( talk) 00:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC) (Tweaked to not miss gist of prior proposal - would love to get readability back up, of course) Collect ( talk) 01:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cary Grant. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 13:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Mike Gatto may have broken the
syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 20:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Alger Hiss and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
CJK ( talk) 13:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Will you please take a look at the following thread and offer your opinion. [18] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 04:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.
For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 21 20:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I think thanks to the reliable sources board we have made progress, but was hoping to get your input here as well if you have a minute. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The conversation string I'm referring to
|
---|
Corp: I did some research re: the 2010 settlement. We say that "after the Oregon AG alleged that..." In actuality it was AG's of the 32 states acting through the Nat'l Association of Attorneys General. After the settlement, the press release from each state's AG used language along the lines of "the {name of state} AG alleged that...". I can dig up about 11 press releases that use this language. To clean this up, I think we simply remove "the attorney general of Oregan alleged" and change it to read "after the attorneys general of these states and the Distrcit of Columbia alleged that..." Bilbobag (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC) That seems fine, but it should be in a single secondary source as oppose to 11 press releases. Otherwise it's Original Synthesis. I would actually prefer not to be consulted before each individual edit though - the article should continue to improve the regular way. If something is not compliant with Wiki-policy in a really overt way, I will raise my objections after the edit is made and I hope my objections will be considered based on their merit. I'll also circle back every 6-12 months for updates and other things. My efforts are just to make the article "good" but I don't want to micromanage every word. OTOH, a healthy collaboration would be, say in 2015 there is another lawsuit that attracts significant media attention. You could say "I'm going to cover this lawsuit for Wikipedia and I wanted to (among other POVs) include PCH's. Can you provide it?" Also, the article should improve based on Wikipedia policy and primarily based on reliable secondary sources (with some exceptions for primary sources where appropriate). Otherwise we will be in this yo-yo forever of my contesting original research in response to your persistence in adding it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC) |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth II. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 14:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
— cyberpower ChatLimited Access 22:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Were having a rather serious debate on the Hiss talk page right now on what constitutes a reliable, verifiable source and I was hoping you could share your opinion.
CJK ( talk) 01:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
See WP:IRC, in my statement
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It has been suggested to me at Talk:Wayne Madsen that you are the BLP go-to guy so I would be pleased if you could help resolve the BLP problem at Talk:Wayne Madsen#NPOV BRD. I took it to the noticeboard but have no replies. Thank you. Wayne ( talk) 14:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Murray Rothbard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 15:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Just so you know, you have been formally added to the Tea Party Movement ArbCom case as an involved party.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 18:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Sir/Madam
You and others have continually removed the label of "prominent homophobe" from the opening paragraph of OSC's biography on the grounds that it violates BLP. How does it violate the terms of BLP? Please provide some actual language from the text that suggests this, because in my reading it just isn't there; Occam's razor suggests that you're just queazy about homophobia as a legitimate part of someone's biography as a public figure.
Regards,
63.228.70.128 ( talk) 08:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not weird, it's handy. You click on the link it takes you to the spot on the page, etc. And it's not an external link, it's just a reference. It doesn't need to be on Doug Ford only. That's a policy for external links. Alaney2k ( talk) 17:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your clear-eyed input at the article. I have a question. Arthur Rubin used the formulation "generally regarded" as conspiracy theorist. You reviewed and we currently have "described as" conspiracy theorist in the lede. Given the plethora of RS (Poynter, the Atlantic, Salon, ABC News, Telegraph, Business Insider, Seattle Post, Forbes, The Nation, Daily Beast/Newsweek) is it reasonable to use the adjective "widely described as"? Capitalismojo ( talk) 14:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on the gun control debate. Have not seen you involved in this topic before, out of curiosity, what brought your attention to this? Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 15:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you at United States Talk:Territories. Sorry I can't follow along on an hourly basis. My view is now more nuanced than a couple months ago, but I still am not brief enough. Nevertheless, please take a look. I have not yet completed my reading, so I was holding off making a formal proposal to restore the previously agreed to sentiment: the US as a federal republic includes the places of US citizens directly represented in Congress: 50 states, DC and five territories.
-or- the US as a federal republic is where uniform federal taxes are administered? states only, and DC as a place that was once a state, never mind the people -- even when modern territories have more rights than previously 'incorporated' territories of the 19th and 20th Centuries (Alaska, Hawaii)? Still working on a fair representation for the second view, with apologies, I am TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 09:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pricasso. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 16:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tammy Duckworth. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 16:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I would not "wade" through that wall of text (ANI) unless I had a backup plan! But I'm glad you made it through. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 14:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion (which affects you) has been proposed to close the Tea Party movement case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Hell of a delay - especially when you already called my post on the talk page "bickering" which could lead to me being disciplined, of all things. I fear that the motion is so far out of common-sense that it will spell grievous long-term results for Wikipedia, and this bit about "closing discussions" as being "bickering" does not impress me one iota whatsoever. Cheers. Judgements without evidence or findings at all are not exactly going to raise my esteem for the arbitration committee at all. As for the "this is not a topic ban" but it is a "page ban" -- Orwell would be proud, indeed! Collect ( talk) 01:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
GN | This user is a Gnarphist |
---|
I if only these kittens were made of gold! Thanks for sensible recent comments in various places.
User:Carolmooredc 20:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I have to be careful -- my wife says we should have a kitten to keep our older cat company .... Collect ( talk) 20:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
In a current ArbCom case one arbitrator stated:
Calls for sanctions should be based on evidence; the greater the sanction, the greater the need for appropriate evidence.
Later the same Arbitrator "suggests" adding a number of editors to a case at the last minute - without any provision for them to actually participate in the case, to have any evidence presented against them, to refute the non-existent evidence, or to have their voices heard at all.
And then tries to have this adopted as ArbCom policy:
The Arbitration Committee may impose restrictions on users engaged in inappropriate behavior (or where it is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, regardless of conduct), usually following a request for arbitration)). There have been no objections.
Note two interesting bits: No misconduct need occur for a person to be punished at all, and there is no requirtrement that any case ever have been brought or any complaint been brought to the Arbitration Committee at all.
I consider such an extension of the ArbCom remit, not found in WP:Arbitration/Policy, to be puzzling at best, and Star Chamber like at worst, and if their "wisdom" allows such a usurpation of the community's clear remit (that policy) in establishing the committee, I am quite likely to pack up the old kit bag. Cheers to all. Collect ( talk) 05:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Note: The moderator of the moderated discussion has now stepped down, saying
[20]
Just in case anyone needed to see how far the fallout from the "proposed motion" is likely to reach. Collect ( talk) 12:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gary North (economist). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 16:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You are one of 6 or 7 Admins who has supported including DOB info in the Duckworth article: Talk:Tammy Duckworth#RfC on providing full date of birth. Yesterday I proposed moving the discussion to the BLPN so that we could get a policy determination on this and thereby avoid such prolonged and repeated discussions on article talk pages. In the last few comments I haven't seen a positive to my proposal. Would you care to opine on moving the discussion? (I am posting this message to each of the admins.) Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 02:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I described you as the 1) "lone dissenter of the RfC", which I noted 2) "established WP:Con regarding the use of the word homosexuality/homosexuals in one of the headers." I regret if you got confused by the second part of the sentence (which describes the content added after the RfC, which resulted from but is not identical to all the points expressed therein), but that doesn't change the clear logical meaning of the sentence: that you were the lone dissenter of (not after) the RfC, which you clearly were in its most important respects: whether to "keep" or "change"; and whether the previous title was "biased". Cheers. Steeletrap ( talk) 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a current RfA for the editor quoted at the top of this page, who in April 2013 called another editor a "psychopathic schizophrnic". If you approve of that demeanor, go to WP:RfA. Chees. Collect ( talk) 15:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prince George of Cambridge. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 17:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Collect. The TPM case aside, I am genuinely interested in understand your interpretation of BLP, if you could point me to any particular conversation or essay or anything. Thanks. — goethean 22:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Just a note to say thanks for dealing with those edits. It's a shame to watch this happen just as it's up for GA. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Please review this explanation of this edit. Please consider discussing on talk page rather than reverting. I understand the sensitivity of BLP. But I do not think this is so clear-cut a matter as to require summary reversion. There are enough WP:TRUTH-seekers haunting these articles. As long-established editors, let's try to show them how collaboration works. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 17:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, Collect. I saw you made some small adjustments to the Licensed products section of the Cracker Barrel article, and since then I've discussed a few additional changes with User:Jerem43 (Jeremy) who has agreed to two changes: the new deal is not for frozen foods but packaged meats, and a sentence about Kraft's use of the brand for cheese should be simplified. Jeremy has said OK to the changes and encouraged me to implement them, however because I've made the requests on Cracker Barrel's behalf, I'd like to avoid doing so. Would you be willing to consider doing so? WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 15:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I've restored my edits to Marco Rubio that you reverted. All of the edits used the sources correctly, improved sources, or fixed erroneous information. If you would like to specifically challenge any of the current sentences, please state your case on the talk page. Thank you. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 02:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Killer Chihuahua 18:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Collect, you mentioned on the TPM talk page about it being okay to use an organization's website when it talks about itself/mission. What about using a BLP's website or even something like this in a bio? [2]. It's a 'viewpoint' piece where she mentions her background. Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 18:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
You responded quickly and helpfully to my posting on the BLP noticeboard regarding the
Fred Hiatt article. I'm reaching out to you again because the principle editor of the page has since rewritten a substantial portion of the article to incorporate some -- though not all -- of the text you wrote without maintaining the spirit or tone of the text, and reinserting much of the text s/he wrote that you edited out. Once again I think there are NPOV issues, especially as the partisan name-calling (one way or the other) makes up the bulk of the article, now, out of proportion with the informational content therein. On top of that, Wormcast's sense of ownership of the text is yet again preventing the article from growing organically towards a more encyclopedic, balanced article. I'm at a loss for how to proceed without turning this into a pissing contest, if you'll forgive the phrase. Any advice or help you could furnish would be gratefully accepted. I'll watch for your response here,
Thanks,
Joehjoeh (
talk) 21:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Possible compromise resolution | |
The Dispute Resolution Noticboard volunteer, Noleander has offered a compromise solution here. Please take a minute to add your response as to whether you agree or disagree with this solution. There are no "ground rule" limitations but please consider using brevity if commenting . Amadscientist ( talk) 00:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC) |
Collect, I liked your suggestion the other day about what to rename the genocide article. But I have suggested a tweak for readability. Do you care to comment about this edit suggestion? I haven't initiated a new move request yet because I would like to get the wording right. Thank you, Crtew ( talk) 09:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bush Derangement Syndrome is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yworo ( talk) 18:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 09:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Did you mean to revert El Heuro instead of me? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Collect! I actually have an account (I think we've crossed paths once or twice; nothing really memorable, positive or negative, as I recall), but I've decided to give IP editing a try for a while. As a side effect, I can't complete the AfD nomination process, since I can't create the AfD page itself as an IP editor. I've been looking at the Entertainment in the 16th century page, which looks like quite the mess; based on the title, it seems way too broad in scope (though naturally the article limits itself to Europe, itself a problem), it wanders off topic, the sources are questionable at best (one, as best I can tell, was created by third-graders!). I don't think there's anything worthwile in the content to be moved to a more appropriate title, and without that, I don't think there's any reason to keep it. If you have a moment, could you take a look, and if you agree, do the honors? Thanks! 68.48.34.96 ( talk) 17:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
As a regular contributor to RSN, whose opinions I respect, but don't always agree with, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Colombo.2C_Rose.2C_Fight_Back_Legal_Abuse:_How_to_Protect_Yourself_From_Your_Own_Attorney. At this point, one uninvolved person has commented, but I prefer to have more than one uninvolved person comment under the circumstances, so as to get a clear consensus one way or the other. Thanks. Fladrif ( talk) 22:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I want to clear things up, because we've both been here a long time and shouldn't be having this much trouble communicating with each other. Here is my side of the story:
Thanks for your comment at RSN related to the sole source for this article. I've gone ahead and filed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legal_abuse. Fladrif ( talk) 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lisa Lavie. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 11:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about clobbering your changes on the Orson Scott Card article. I'm not sure if I just didn't notice the "editing an old version" warning or if the wiki simply failed to notify me that there was an edit conflict, but one way or another, I thought I was editing the most recent version only to discover in my Watchlist that there had been an intervening change. I reinstated most of your edits with the exception of the "however" in the lead, which, after my partial reversion, I thought was necessary to highlight OSC's apparent change in position from the one in the preceding sentence. – RobinHood70 talk 16:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lindsay Lohan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 12:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charlize Theron. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 13:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for removing undue weight. Well, I didn't realize that "arrest" thing should have been easy to write about, as long as too much is omitted. I can't find a barnstar for you, so... there. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see Trudeau's talk page for further discussion since I am not interested in an edit war. Also the undue weight does not seem to imply here. Krazytea( talk) 20:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 14:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
We seem to have this situation resolved for a month or so and another user arrives and posts on this trivial incident starting the cycle over again. Thank you for the help. Can you monitor this article for repeat offenders? Politics555 ( talk) 23:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this piece, if this incident is merely a one time unverified claim in only one of Fleming's 33 sandwich shops he has owned for many years, and Fleming was not there, and there is no evidence that the incident results from any business or political policy of Fleming, is it worthy of inclusion in a BLP? Joapedia ( talk) 14:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, that being the case (and considering the campaign season is over), and nothing ever developed of this situation, should it be removed? With your experience, you would know better than me. Thanks. Joapedia ( talk) 03:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you. Joapedia ( talk) 12:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Need your help again. My removal of the content was reversed with the weakest of explanations. Joapedia ( talk) 14:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kurban Said. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 15:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the Lisa Lavie AfD. I'm asking various editors for constructive comments or explanations on my talk page: User talk:RCraig09#Questions. Thanks, from RCraig09 ( talk) 15:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
"Yep -- it is kind of hard to get less than zero percent from a fundraiser!" Actually, no. Remember, the fund raising company needs to be paid - even if it's also a non profit, it still pays wages to its employees. If the people dialing phones can't get donations to cover their time, a fundraiser could actually lose money. I'm guessing this was a contract that guaranteed that wouldn't happen. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
If anyone got a strange email from me - it was not from me - my contact list was hacked, and pernicious stuff sent to all on it. I have no idea whether I was deliberately targeted or not, but if I were, this may recur. Do not click on any links in a message purportedly from me which are from a strange domain of any sort at all, please! Collect ( talk) 01:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
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.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:George Maharis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 07:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes - I have dental problems. It turns out to be common after extended radiation treatments for cancer. If someone thinks this is a good way to dis someone, then I suggest it reflects on them quite poorly. Collect ( talk) 17:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You took part in the deciding of my ban, so I need to inform you of this appeal. It's your choice if you want to join in. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=551050869&oldid=551050508#Please_remove_my_ban. -- TheShadowCrow ( talk) 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I apologized because it seemed LBW was angry at me for some reason. That was before he started making further accusations against me on the talk pages of other users. I took this as an indication that he was not willing to compromise. I knew before I apologized that I had been in the right and that LBW was guilty of TBAN violations: I apologized only on the off-chance that I had accidentally seemed confrontational and caused him some stress. His later actions proved me wrong. Further, there was nothing punitive about his block. It was preventative. Let's not speak of this any more, okay? Cheers, and happy editing! Konjakupoet ( talk) 12:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Indian poets. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 08:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you have contributed to the article, your involvement in the discussion may be helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Taking_stock. Cheers.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jesus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 12:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Collect!
Since we seem to disagree more often than we agree, please take a look at User:Stephan_Schulz#Collected_ramblings, in particular the third bullet. I usually strongly try not to shape my arguments to a desired conclusion, but rather to arrive at my conclusions based on the strength of evidence and argument (and I was quite happy when I was able to derive your square root of sampled class size estimate of the standard deviation from the definition of standard deviation and variance - I didn't remember that particular rule of thumb from my class on probability theory). But I will happily attack (what I see as) faulty reasoning, not matter if I like or dislike the claim made. I really have no particular opinion on, not interest in, the size of a tiny and mostly harmless religious group. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 14:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Noted. Though I disagree it is an edit war at this point; he was bold, I reverted. He then broke process by reverting me, and I reverted again informing him of this. Should the edit war continue, that was the opening salvo, but if it doesn't then that was merely a corrective action. -- Golbez ( talk) 20:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Golbez above asserts it is "tautological" that a country has sovereignty over itself. Which appears to say that "that which a country has sovereignty over is part of that country." Which is the crux here ... is having sovereignty over a territory the same as owning it? In the case of a nation holding sovereignty (not "trusteeship" or any leasehold or treaty otherwise) over an area, is it wrong to say the area is part of that country? Anyone please respond - but not by parsing minutiae or egg yolks <g>. Thanks.
Collect (
talk) 13:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Having sovereignty over a territory is the same as owning it. This is basic. What is sovereignty if not that? In the case of a nation holding sovereignty over an area, the area is clearly part of that country. This shouldn't be controversial. Capitalismojo ( talk) 02:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Please don't keep edit warring to place the disputed figure in the lead or infobox. It was an anomaly, and there are multiple objections to it on the talk page and the RSN. It is in the body of the article, which is enough. Even if not disputed, it's inappropriate to have multiple numbers in the lead – church figure v independent figure is enough. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of vegans. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 13:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Eugene Plotkin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 14:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
In an RfC/U, the requirement appears to be that two users must have the same dispute with the user in question. Does that mean, the same dispute on the same article, or does it allow for anyone with a dispute with that editor to add his dispute and certify the RfC? Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 13:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of vegetarians. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 00:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sockpuppet (Internet). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 09:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Collect,
Your defense of good stats on the Christian Science article is spot on. It also makes me feel bad because I raised the issue in the first place.
I do not understand why others don't get it, and even among those who do, that crack about elementary stat books raised my dander.
Please check out my sandbox at Centamia and see if you think any of it is worth posting. I've pretty much had it with Wikipedia but as you've sprung to the defense of good stats (which I started), I'll push on at your suggestion.
Thank you so much for introducing an iota of logic into that article. And please forgive me if this is the wrong place to tell you so. Please advise.
Centamia ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centamia ( talk • contribs) 09:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
You are the only person who took the pain to answer my query in a clear way. I think I understood the difference between the 2. Can I conclude that Southmonitor.com is not a reliable source? Benedictdilton ( talk) 03:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I've just made this comment on the moderated discussion page:
There were four editors involved in the edit war: Phoenix and Winslow, Ubikwit, Collect, and Xenophrenic. Phoenix and Winslow and Xenophrenic have agreed to not revert. I haven't seen that commitment from Collect and Ubikwit. I will let them know that if they are unwilling to agree not to revert on the sub-articles either while they are being created or after they have been moved into mainspace, then they should agree not to edit the articles at all.
You may have mentioned somewhere on the discussion page that you agree not to revert, and if so, then please point me to it. Otherwise, would you mind stating that you either agree not to revert, or you agree not to edit the sub-articles we are creating? SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion in the "Content discussion, resumed" section got out of hand, so I have closed it. A number of contributors to that discussion wandered away from commenting on the content into commenting on the contributor. I would ask that everyone make a special effort to word what they say carefully. For example: "One editor suggests that..." is picking on an editor, even if not naming them. If the point of the statement was to clarify what the use of "alleged" signifies in the article, then that is all that is needed to be stated. It can be helpful to see what guidelines there are for uses of words on Wikipedia, such as WP:ALLEGED, and to refer to these guidelines.
At this point it might be better if anyone has concerns about the behaviour of anyone else in the discussion, that they bring those concerns direct to me rather than raise them, however obliquely, on the discussion page. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy is convicted of his fraud, explain with some common sense and brain why u reverted my edit Murrallli ( talk) 14:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I replied to you on the ANI page regarding protection of Wade Robson. PP was of course, turned down. It is still getting vandalised, but apparently not "enough" to be protected. I know I'm not supposed to go from board to board asking for assistance, but I don't know how to appeal this. Can you help? Ultra Venia ( talk) 03:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kriyananda. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 10:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey Collect. I just want to leave a note about the direction the Rob Ford discussion seems to be taking. I noticed an edit to Dennis Brown's page where you refer to "political" editors, and now another where you speculate on the political motivations of contributors to that conversation. I don't know everyone on that page, but the Canadian editors I am familiar with are not "political" editors by any means. It really puts people's backs up against the wall when their motivations are questioned. This is a divisive topic, and I don't expect the current issue will be resolved smoothly, but if everyone stays focused on the content and the policies, there is a much better chance of people working together to improve our coverage of Ford. The Interior (Talk) 13:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Done. Sorry for the mistake. Casprings ( talk) 19:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tom Selleck. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 10:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alicia Silverstone. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 10:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Where's the wikichecker you used? I'd like to check mine. Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 18:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bruce Lee. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 11:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Laura Robson. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 12:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Would you know other NPOV experienced editors who would be willing to help out on the Tea Party movement article? SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your thoughts in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 15:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 12:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
|}
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alger Hiss. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 13:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Collect, are you at all technical? Do you know how to crop an image in an article? Could you take a look here: [15]. I'd appreciate it. This is regarding the admin on the ArbCom case you also commented on. I made mention of problems with that image and he's started an RfC regarding it. An editor made an excellent suggestion to crop the photo. I've no idea how to do that but perhaps you do, or you might know of someone who can do it? Malke 2010 ( talk) 19:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Collect, thank you for your help. So in stead of the Chinese embassy press release, would news article be more appropriate? For example: http://english.people.com.cn/special/fagong/1999073000A101.html This news report states Li Hongzhi is wanted in China. Is this acceptable? Bobby fletcher ( talk) 16:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Since you have over 25 edits at Talk:Mark Twain, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Derivative works and cultural references templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, There is a discussion about reliable sources and BLP issues related to Wayne Madsen [ here] if you would like to participate. I feel that you have a firm grasp of BLP issues, and would value your input although I am not at all certain you will agree with my edits. Capitalismojo ( talk) 03:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Collect, I'll work on the readability tonight and post that for you in a separate section on the moderated discussion. For now, let's just get everybody saying 'yes' for a change. Okay? Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 00:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The Tea Party lacks a central organization, and lacks specific central goals. Each group sets goals and priorities, sometimes conflicting with other groups. Some principles are widely embraced. These include a government limited in size by the Constitution, a free market economy, and governmental fiscal restraint.
It is both conservative and libertarian in part. Some focus on economic issues and taxes, limiting government size and spending. Others deal with social issues such as abortion, immigration enforcement, and health care reform. Their SuperPacs support candidates sympathetic to their goals and oppose what they call the "Republican establishment" candidates. The IRS treatment of groups with "tea party" in their names has raised some controversy.
It stresses an "originalist" view of the Constitution in its reform agenda. Amendments have been targeted by some groups for repeal or change, including the 14th, 16th, and 17th. There is support for a "Repeal Amendment" which would enable a two-thirds majority of the states to repeal federal laws, and a Balanced Budget Amendment to limit deficit spending.
The Contract from America is based on points favored in an online poll conducted by Ryan Hecker, a conservative activist. Score 13/28 which almost gets to a reasonable minimum of 30 for reading ease ("fairly difficult" in the standard). Collect ( talk) 00:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
For lurkers: This is in reference to Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion which seems sometimes to be at a horrid impasse. Collect ( talk) 00:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC) (Tweaked to not miss gist of prior proposal - would love to get readability back up, of course) Collect ( talk) 01:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cary Grant. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 13:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Mike Gatto may have broken the
syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 20:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Alger Hiss and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
CJK ( talk) 13:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Will you please take a look at the following thread and offer your opinion. [18] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 04:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.
For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 21 20:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I think thanks to the reliable sources board we have made progress, but was hoping to get your input here as well if you have a minute. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The conversation string I'm referring to
|
---|
Corp: I did some research re: the 2010 settlement. We say that "after the Oregon AG alleged that..." In actuality it was AG's of the 32 states acting through the Nat'l Association of Attorneys General. After the settlement, the press release from each state's AG used language along the lines of "the {name of state} AG alleged that...". I can dig up about 11 press releases that use this language. To clean this up, I think we simply remove "the attorney general of Oregan alleged" and change it to read "after the attorneys general of these states and the Distrcit of Columbia alleged that..." Bilbobag (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC) That seems fine, but it should be in a single secondary source as oppose to 11 press releases. Otherwise it's Original Synthesis. I would actually prefer not to be consulted before each individual edit though - the article should continue to improve the regular way. If something is not compliant with Wiki-policy in a really overt way, I will raise my objections after the edit is made and I hope my objections will be considered based on their merit. I'll also circle back every 6-12 months for updates and other things. My efforts are just to make the article "good" but I don't want to micromanage every word. OTOH, a healthy collaboration would be, say in 2015 there is another lawsuit that attracts significant media attention. You could say "I'm going to cover this lawsuit for Wikipedia and I wanted to (among other POVs) include PCH's. Can you provide it?" Also, the article should improve based on Wikipedia policy and primarily based on reliable secondary sources (with some exceptions for primary sources where appropriate). Otherwise we will be in this yo-yo forever of my contesting original research in response to your persistence in adding it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC) |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth II. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 14:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
— cyberpower ChatLimited Access 22:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Were having a rather serious debate on the Hiss talk page right now on what constitutes a reliable, verifiable source and I was hoping you could share your opinion.
CJK ( talk) 01:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
See WP:IRC, in my statement
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It has been suggested to me at Talk:Wayne Madsen that you are the BLP go-to guy so I would be pleased if you could help resolve the BLP problem at Talk:Wayne Madsen#NPOV BRD. I took it to the noticeboard but have no replies. Thank you. Wayne ( talk) 14:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Murray Rothbard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 15:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Just so you know, you have been formally added to the Tea Party Movement ArbCom case as an involved party.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 18:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Sir/Madam
You and others have continually removed the label of "prominent homophobe" from the opening paragraph of OSC's biography on the grounds that it violates BLP. How does it violate the terms of BLP? Please provide some actual language from the text that suggests this, because in my reading it just isn't there; Occam's razor suggests that you're just queazy about homophobia as a legitimate part of someone's biography as a public figure.
Regards,
63.228.70.128 ( talk) 08:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not weird, it's handy. You click on the link it takes you to the spot on the page, etc. And it's not an external link, it's just a reference. It doesn't need to be on Doug Ford only. That's a policy for external links. Alaney2k ( talk) 17:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your clear-eyed input at the article. I have a question. Arthur Rubin used the formulation "generally regarded" as conspiracy theorist. You reviewed and we currently have "described as" conspiracy theorist in the lede. Given the plethora of RS (Poynter, the Atlantic, Salon, ABC News, Telegraph, Business Insider, Seattle Post, Forbes, The Nation, Daily Beast/Newsweek) is it reasonable to use the adjective "widely described as"? Capitalismojo ( talk) 14:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on the gun control debate. Have not seen you involved in this topic before, out of curiosity, what brought your attention to this? Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 15:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you at United States Talk:Territories. Sorry I can't follow along on an hourly basis. My view is now more nuanced than a couple months ago, but I still am not brief enough. Nevertheless, please take a look. I have not yet completed my reading, so I was holding off making a formal proposal to restore the previously agreed to sentiment: the US as a federal republic includes the places of US citizens directly represented in Congress: 50 states, DC and five territories.
-or- the US as a federal republic is where uniform federal taxes are administered? states only, and DC as a place that was once a state, never mind the people -- even when modern territories have more rights than previously 'incorporated' territories of the 19th and 20th Centuries (Alaska, Hawaii)? Still working on a fair representation for the second view, with apologies, I am TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 09:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pricasso. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 16:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tammy Duckworth. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 16:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I would not "wade" through that wall of text (ANI) unless I had a backup plan! But I'm glad you made it through. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 14:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion (which affects you) has been proposed to close the Tea Party movement case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Hell of a delay - especially when you already called my post on the talk page "bickering" which could lead to me being disciplined, of all things. I fear that the motion is so far out of common-sense that it will spell grievous long-term results for Wikipedia, and this bit about "closing discussions" as being "bickering" does not impress me one iota whatsoever. Cheers. Judgements without evidence or findings at all are not exactly going to raise my esteem for the arbitration committee at all. As for the "this is not a topic ban" but it is a "page ban" -- Orwell would be proud, indeed! Collect ( talk) 01:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
GN | This user is a Gnarphist |
---|
I if only these kittens were made of gold! Thanks for sensible recent comments in various places.
User:Carolmooredc 20:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I have to be careful -- my wife says we should have a kitten to keep our older cat company .... Collect ( talk) 20:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
In a current ArbCom case one arbitrator stated:
Calls for sanctions should be based on evidence; the greater the sanction, the greater the need for appropriate evidence.
Later the same Arbitrator "suggests" adding a number of editors to a case at the last minute - without any provision for them to actually participate in the case, to have any evidence presented against them, to refute the non-existent evidence, or to have their voices heard at all.
And then tries to have this adopted as ArbCom policy:
The Arbitration Committee may impose restrictions on users engaged in inappropriate behavior (or where it is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, regardless of conduct), usually following a request for arbitration)). There have been no objections.
Note two interesting bits: No misconduct need occur for a person to be punished at all, and there is no requirtrement that any case ever have been brought or any complaint been brought to the Arbitration Committee at all.
I consider such an extension of the ArbCom remit, not found in WP:Arbitration/Policy, to be puzzling at best, and Star Chamber like at worst, and if their "wisdom" allows such a usurpation of the community's clear remit (that policy) in establishing the committee, I am quite likely to pack up the old kit bag. Cheers to all. Collect ( talk) 05:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Note: The moderator of the moderated discussion has now stepped down, saying
[20]
Just in case anyone needed to see how far the fallout from the "proposed motion" is likely to reach. Collect ( talk) 12:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gary North (economist). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 16:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You are one of 6 or 7 Admins who has supported including DOB info in the Duckworth article: Talk:Tammy Duckworth#RfC on providing full date of birth. Yesterday I proposed moving the discussion to the BLPN so that we could get a policy determination on this and thereby avoid such prolonged and repeated discussions on article talk pages. In the last few comments I haven't seen a positive to my proposal. Would you care to opine on moving the discussion? (I am posting this message to each of the admins.) Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 02:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I described you as the 1) "lone dissenter of the RfC", which I noted 2) "established WP:Con regarding the use of the word homosexuality/homosexuals in one of the headers." I regret if you got confused by the second part of the sentence (which describes the content added after the RfC, which resulted from but is not identical to all the points expressed therein), but that doesn't change the clear logical meaning of the sentence: that you were the lone dissenter of (not after) the RfC, which you clearly were in its most important respects: whether to "keep" or "change"; and whether the previous title was "biased". Cheers. Steeletrap ( talk) 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a current RfA for the editor quoted at the top of this page, who in April 2013 called another editor a "psychopathic schizophrnic". If you approve of that demeanor, go to WP:RfA. Chees. Collect ( talk) 15:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prince George of Cambridge. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 17:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Collect. The TPM case aside, I am genuinely interested in understand your interpretation of BLP, if you could point me to any particular conversation or essay or anything. Thanks. — goethean 22:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)