I don't wish to turn NW's page into a general talk page, so I'll comment here.
I urge you not to make too much of your point:
It is of no minor interest that User:KillerChihuahua specifically stated that I ought not be in the list, and she was the original complainant here. Cheers.
Cases usually take on a life of their own, and while nominally about named participants, often grow. I don't think the original editor to file a case has any special privilege regarding its scope.
Which reminds me of one of my early concerns about Arbcom process, which still troubles me.
I think an early step in the case ought to be a proper determination of scope. I am fine with the notion that the scope might change as evidence is provided, but it ought to be explicit: lay out an initial scope, and modify it openly if it needs changing. I literally want a Scope section, which may need updating over time, but clearly identifies the scope. While some of the closely involved participants may scoff and argue that the scope is obvious, one of the points of the case documentation is to...well document the case. I've reviewed some old cases, sometimes because I explicitly wanted to know if some aspect was in scope, and I literally had to read the whole case and draw a conclusion. It shouldn't be that hard. I should be able to read a scope section and know.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Collect.
This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you have commented my additions to the article Occupation of the Baltic states, stating that "this stuff not directly related to the Baltic states". Other users agreed on the talk page that such information could be added. Plus, the article already has the "Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces" section, which, for some reason is not deemed unrelated to the topic. My changes directly concern the topic, since the article's title is Occupation of the Baltic states, and they were occupied by Germany and served in their ranks. This article mentions occupation by the USSR and how those nations served in its rankes during WWII, but doesn't mention how they served in Nazi Germany's ranks. So please undo your changes, since two users didn't object the inclusion of such section (see the talk page). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.73.200.135 ( talk) 13:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
You reverted my edit to the Chip Rogers article, claming '"Searcy" is relant to Searcy. The ownership of a radio staton which he had previously owned and one of the new partners apparently returned his share is not generally considered criminal in nature, as it is presented here'. Searcy is relevant to the 'Agenda 21' presentation that Roger organised; it was the content, and it was the controversial nature of Searcy's remarks in a talk organised by a prominent state politician, which caused the media articles to take notice. I used the facts from the existing reference; without them, the article is mystifying. No-one would know why a talk on 'Agenda 21' would be worth noting in a Wikipedia article. You are the one saying the ownership looks 'criminal'; it appears to be against FCC regulations to not have reported this, and given there is already controversy about his appointment to Georgia Public Broadcasting, and this is being reported in several Georgia media outlets, and could be a conflict of interest in a government-created job, it is noteworthy. I ask you to undo your edit. Peace Makes Plenty ( talk) 17:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Scott Alexander (politician). 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
[2] See also [3] to see the spoor of my very own personal stalker. Collect ( talk) 20:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you happen to have a source on it being used as an example of a bad movie by Disney? LM2000 ( talk) 20:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Since you used an edit summary to me of, "(cur | prev) 19:43, 17 September 2013 Collect (talk | contribs) . . (47,883 bytes) (+417) . . (→CCA found in contempt of court = WP:UNDUE?: hobgoblin of little minds?) (undo | thank)," [8] I am going to ask you to please not personally attack other editors in edit summaries or anywhere. It won't win consensus for your edits. Thank you. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 20:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC))
Edits like this one risk making you look a fool. As I know you are not a fool, I counsel you to think long and hard before making any further edits of this type. Are you in need of a Wikibreak, perhaps? -- John ( talk) 12:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if anyone notified you, but your !vote has been moved to an entirely different section and will apparently be discounted. [11] The same thing happened to my !vote, so I created an Abstain section where I repeated my concerns. [12] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Collect, Lionelt has given you a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie, for your faithful service and commitment to Wikipedia! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie! Enjoy! | |
I appreciate that you're unhappy about an ArbCom decision, and rightly so. But you say: "ArbCom has made the singular worst decision in its history." To know that, you would have had to have studied all of those decisions. Have you really done that? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
In requesting an edit summary removal by an IP at ANI, I referred to the analysis of the sources that you had done. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#request_BLP_edit_summary_blanking -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
This [13] was so obviously a topic ban violation my first instinct was to rat you out to WP:AE, and then I recalled how lame the arbcom decision was ... my second instinct was to fix the article, but then I'd be encouraging you to continue make ban violating edits. So I decided to do nothing and let someone else deal with it. Reviewing the situation and seeing getting into stupid arguments with AC clerks and an AE admin .. not good. I've spent enough time in the dark wiki-places to know that, yea, Wikipedia "governance" often sucks, but it's a better place if there are editors; and you losing the rest of your editing privileges in some Don Quixote quest for justice that will probably never happen will not make the encyclopedia a better place. Let it go, edit elsewhere, and either like the sanction clock out or appeal after the election to the new committee. NE Ent 01:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
=
I have started User:Collect/ACE2013 presenting the questions I feel will be salient to my support or opposition to any candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Please feel free to link to it on your own pages, of course. Cheers to all. Collect ( talk) 15:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
"The lady doth protest too much" is quote from Hamlet. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 21:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar | |
You are the pride and joy of Wikipedia! Without people like you Wikipedia would not move forward! Banaster Giver Extra Polite ( talk) 11:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC) |
Hey, could you clarify what you asking in your second question? I've read through it a few times and it's not quite clear to me yet. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 02:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
At User:Collect/ACE2013. Do I wish more had made some sort of answer? Yep. But I did find 13 qualified candidates IMHO, and ask that readers consider the results of this exercise with an open mind. Can candidates still answer the questions? Yep. The only absolutely wrong answers are "none" and any which suggest that the questions are invalid because "a quote was not a quote", or the like. Cheers to all. Collect ( talk) 18:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis
===ArbCom Election===\
My opinions as a result of a series of questions made of candidates and their responses are at User:Collect/ACE2013
As you are extremely active on the BLP noticeboards I am hoping you can help out with this problem as it has been discussed on the BLP noticeboard for over a week
[14] without any independent editors weighing in and commenting. An editor reverted three edits I made to the article
Franklin child prostitution ring allegations for "BLP violations." I went to the Talk page and requested clarification on how the edits violated BLP. The editor became abusive and three other editors came to Talk to support him, yet in four weeks of discussion none of the editors have quoted a single BLP policy that is being violated. The editors keep referring to personally "know[ing] that this incident is a hoax and a conspiracy theory,"
[15] making straw man arguments
[16] or making ambiguous claims of a BLP violation by citing the entire Wikipedia page
WP:BLP. The discussion was taken to the BLP noticeboard where the four editors are still declining to justify the reversions and are instead relying on
personal and
Ad hominem attacks in reply to my posts. The following are the three edits in question:
[17]
[18]
[19]
Also, in late November 2013, text that had been in the article since May 2012 was deleted for not being fully referenced, I replaced it with the missing reference
[20] only to see it immediately deleted with the comment "revert per BLP [as] it is not specific, accusatory, insinuation and guilt by association". This time a specific reason for the violation was eventually given (
WP:BLPCRIME) but I'm not sure it applies as a court of law, albeit civil, found the person in question guilty. I honestly can't see how the edits violate anything and would appreciate your input.
Wayne (
talk) 05:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
You have made a statement in the clarification request relating to Argentine History. This message is to let you know that a motion amending the original decision has now been proposed. You are welcome to add comments on this motion underneath your original statement. Thanks, AGK [•] 11:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Purrrr! | |
I didn't want to disappoint you by not acknowledging your witty comments/edit summaries at SPI. You brought a <g> to my face. L'Chaim! - Mr X 01:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC) |
|}
This looks to me like a clear violation of WP:POINT: [21] [22] What do you think? Roccodrift ( talk) 01:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Those seem to lean towards inappropriate edit summaries, discussed here and here. -- Jreferee ( talk) 14:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 19:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I did not think that MilesMoney was a sock of Steeletrap. However there could be a connection between Steeltrap and StillStanding-247, formerly 24.45.42.125, as both are from the tri-state area. MilesMoney reminds me of Dylan Flaherty, an editor you may remember. They are both from Toronto, edit articles about LGBT, Christianity and the American Right, get involved in BLP disputes and spend a lot of time at ANI, both as complainants and respondents. Dylan Flaherty was blocked 23 December 2010 and MilesMony appeared 16 July 2013. TFD ( talk) 02:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
MilesMoney is now fully disinvited from posting drivel on this talk page. TFD and I are "conspiring"? On what planet?
Collect (
talk) 06:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Miles -- Stay away - really! You were already asked here
To all lurkers:
User:MilesMoney is now community banned from all of Wikipedia. /He had indicated he would appeal the ban, but at this point two weeks later it does not appear he shall return.
Collect (
talk) 15:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ROG5728 ( talk) 14:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I posted a comment after yours on Jimbo's talk page on how FTC regulations may apply to certain cases of corporate editing on Wikipedia.
I was curious if you felt my commenting on such issues is appropriate, being that I myself often contribute with a COI. Some editors have given me barnstars for my contributions to the COI discussion, quoted me in other discussions and said I had great ideas, but there have been a couple cases where there was a "hey, don't you have a COI with COI!?"
I think I use to be inspired by the idea of being part of the solution, but I have since come to a more bleak forecast on whether it is a good use of my time. CorporateM ( Talk) 01:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Collect. I saw the article, which drew me to the Kenneth Fredette page. As I edited the talk page, you edited the comment controversy section in the article. I found another reference that seemed to place the matter in context and I edited the comment controversy section accordingly. -- Jreferee ( talk) 15:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I've requested clarification from ArbCom regarding Gun control and that article's possible inclusion in the Tea Party movement topic ban. Malke 2010 ( talk) 00:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Phil Robertson". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 00:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing at WP:RFC where there should be a new section separate from where the RfC template was placed. A new section indicates a discussion not related to the RfC. What if we just create a section specifically for the RfC (after my comment) and have the "Survey" and "Threaded discussion" subsections mentioned at WP:RFC? Unless you are looking at guidelines I haven't seen yet. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, I just making a general point on User talk:Jimbo and not opining on the content of this article. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your comment here, [23] is there a policy or guideline that actually says this? I thought there was, but when I looked up WP:HEADINGS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, I didn't see it. Perhaps I was thinking of WP:TALKNEW? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious about something. A few days ago, you basically accused me of following you around and hounding you, because I responded to a post of yours on User talk:Jimbo Wales (where I've been fairly active over the past year). That was sort of silly, but OK. Then yesterday, I posted to Wikipedia talk:Administrators—a page where you haven't set foot in several years—and you immediately jumped into the discussion to disagree with me.
I'm not suggesting that you should be disallowed from posting on Wikipedia talk:Administrators, regardless of how you arrived at that particular page and that particular discussion. I do think you should be a little more careful in throwing around implicit accusations of hounding, lest they seem unintentionally ironic or outright hypocritical. MastCell Talk 17:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, let's be clear. I'm not accusing you of anything except being too quick to throw around silly accusations of hounding. MastCell Talk 19:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I think that the message you left on my talk page about "bots do job better than people can" may have been intended for another editor as I don't understand how it applies to me. I assume you intended it for the editor who reverted your edits on the Rene Vilatte article. Cheers, Anglicanus ( talk) 02:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to take a round stone / And try to bounce or flip it...
And if you find a flat one / Then you might as well just SKIP IT!. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Option 2I appreciate your standing up and trying to do the right thing. There is clearly no consensus for Option 2, but the admin doesn't care. [37] ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Proposed
That an independent administrator re-examine the finding at [26] that "option 2" has a clear consensus for adoption in the TRM/BB/M AN/I discussion.
was posted by me at
WP:AN. Spillover may occur on this UT page, and I shall remove any intemperate comments. Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 22:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Now that you've reverted that troll again, do I need to have that list posted? If not, feel free to delete. It's a duplicate from my own talk page. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings either way but the capitals look right to me. I am a White man. An albino is a white man. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
This is kind of weird. I revert my edit to your version, you revert the reversion, changing it back to my version. You said, "When "white" is used as an adjective,..." Here Black is used as a noun, not an adjective. What are you thinking? Rick Norwood ( talk) 23:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm just reminding participants that East Germany falls within the scope WP:Discretionary sanctions per Arbcom here. Please see recent comments at talk:East Germany. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Nice word. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Editors would require five hundred good edits before they could substantially alter any prominent politician's biography. -- NeilN talk to me 21:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather ( talk) 04:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This article was mentioned on BLPN. Please take a look at it when you get a chance. Thanks. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 05:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The topic whose discussion you contributed to here seeks comment on its proposed resolution with consensus. Thanks. Evensteven ( talk) 20:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place here regarding the inclusion of File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg at Jimi Hendrix. GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 20:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I saw you attempting to root-out socks on Talk:Duck Dynasty, where I also made efforts to get some edits made.
After doing some investigation, I believe the following is true: MilesMoney clashed with me on Talk:Phil Robertson 1 Jan 2014, calling me and the Christian religion intolerant, in his special snarky way of course here. MilesMoney is blocked Jan. 2, 2014 for harrassment, battleground behaviour, 3RR and violating WP:AGF and is finally banned Jan 29, 2014. Shabeki suddenly appears Jan. 11 on Talk:Pamela Geller (MilesMoney was recently heavily editing there also) with same POVs pushing and biased attitude as MilesMoney. Shabeki suddenly shows up days after MilesMoney is banned - see editor interaction results here, very suspicious when Shabeki had not edited there in years. Shabeki also suddenly showed up on my Talk page making personal insults and saying I have an agenda. How would he know I have an agenda when I never had any interaction with 'Shabeki' before that. But I did interact with MilesMoney just days earlier, as I mentioned, and he wasn't pleasant and immediately assumed bad faith on my part. Shabeki hates ring-wing people, anyone he considers a Christian or Jew (non-Muslim), is hypersensitive about protecting Islam on wiki, assumes bad faith immediately and without cause, engages in 3RR and name-calling, and lies about others edits and comments. Same MO as MilesMoney. Both are highly experienced editors and know how to set-up editors to get blocked or banned. Exactly the behaviour Shabeki tried with me here on Talk:Red_Eye_w/Greg_Gutfeld#Gutfeld_and_sources_used_term_Ground_Zero_Mosque
This is Shabeki's 4th edit in Feb. 2007 here where he clearly already had interaction with FairNBalanced(a Jewish editor) and was getting in his last shots using a sockpuppet account he created just to do that. Another editor questioned Shabeki at the time about that and he gave very lame excuse. The record shows FairNBalance was not banned, he gave up in July 2006. Shabeki has edited same type articles as FairNBalanced edited(FNB from the Jewish POV, Shabeki from Muslim POV), so I believe they crossed paths many times before, but Shabeki was using another account(s), perhaps User:Timothy_Usher which is now indefinitly blocked.
IMHO, Shabeki is a pre-sock of MilesMoney. I believe further investigation using wiki sockpuppet detection tools will quickly show a high-correlation between edit histories, times of edits and place of edits, etc. I came to wiki to help improve it, I never expected to come under such a vicious personal attack just for reverting Shabeki's 3RR edit attempt back to what the original source and wiki editor wrote.--09:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Shabeki's 29 Jan. 2014 last comment at Talk:Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld (the very same day MilesMoney was banned from wiki): "The anon exposed his biases very well and has shown he's not fit to be an editor on wikipedia." Very familiar words to him that day?! He's(MM) been banned, so now he is trying desperately to get me banned as well using his pre-sock, as he was trying to do from his very first edit there personally attacking me relentlessly and vandalizing my comments. Can you help decide if I am right? -- 63.3.5.132 ( talk) 09:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
At the Criticism of Walmart article there is a section after External Links called News Articles. I wasn't sure if this is something that should be included. It seems odd. One would think that news links would be used as refs or inline citations, not stand-alone links. Could you take a peek? Fresh eyes would be appreciated. Capitalismojo ( talk) 21:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Collect. You undid my edit!! Whilst I do read some of Delingpole's Telegraph articles, and know that much of what he writes is tongue in cheek, I saw no reason to doubt that he was sympathetic to UKIP. The article was properly cited, are you saying it was a joke? Regards JRPG ( talk) 00:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for introducing me to the word chronophagous. An excellent description of all too many of the processes and discussions that go on here. ;-) Matt Deres ( talk) 01:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
How exactly is Iona Institute "of no relevance" to Pantigate? The group has been discussed in the mainstream media, including RTE, has been discussed in the European parliament, and this evening will be discussed in the Oireachtas. Paul Moloney ( talk) 16:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Re: Rick Scott reverts. First, the Guidelines for Further reading are not the same as those for External links. Second, you seem to be unaware that Ballotpedia is not a wiki in the the sense that Wikipedia is a wiki. Paid staff do almost all the writing, and review all contributions from the public before they appear. Therefore, your argument does not apply. As I said, feel free to support getting Template:GovLinks restored, as that is an alternative. 71.23.178.214 ( talk) 17:28, 6 February 2014 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Collect reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 17:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't wish to turn NW's page into a general talk page, so I'll comment here.
I urge you not to make too much of your point:
It is of no minor interest that User:KillerChihuahua specifically stated that I ought not be in the list, and she was the original complainant here. Cheers.
Cases usually take on a life of their own, and while nominally about named participants, often grow. I don't think the original editor to file a case has any special privilege regarding its scope.
Which reminds me of one of my early concerns about Arbcom process, which still troubles me.
I think an early step in the case ought to be a proper determination of scope. I am fine with the notion that the scope might change as evidence is provided, but it ought to be explicit: lay out an initial scope, and modify it openly if it needs changing. I literally want a Scope section, which may need updating over time, but clearly identifies the scope. While some of the closely involved participants may scoff and argue that the scope is obvious, one of the points of the case documentation is to...well document the case. I've reviewed some old cases, sometimes because I explicitly wanted to know if some aspect was in scope, and I literally had to read the whole case and draw a conclusion. It shouldn't be that hard. I should be able to read a scope section and know.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Collect.
This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you have commented my additions to the article Occupation of the Baltic states, stating that "this stuff not directly related to the Baltic states". Other users agreed on the talk page that such information could be added. Plus, the article already has the "Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces" section, which, for some reason is not deemed unrelated to the topic. My changes directly concern the topic, since the article's title is Occupation of the Baltic states, and they were occupied by Germany and served in their ranks. This article mentions occupation by the USSR and how those nations served in its rankes during WWII, but doesn't mention how they served in Nazi Germany's ranks. So please undo your changes, since two users didn't object the inclusion of such section (see the talk page). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.73.200.135 ( talk) 13:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
You reverted my edit to the Chip Rogers article, claming '"Searcy" is relant to Searcy. The ownership of a radio staton which he had previously owned and one of the new partners apparently returned his share is not generally considered criminal in nature, as it is presented here'. Searcy is relevant to the 'Agenda 21' presentation that Roger organised; it was the content, and it was the controversial nature of Searcy's remarks in a talk organised by a prominent state politician, which caused the media articles to take notice. I used the facts from the existing reference; without them, the article is mystifying. No-one would know why a talk on 'Agenda 21' would be worth noting in a Wikipedia article. You are the one saying the ownership looks 'criminal'; it appears to be against FCC regulations to not have reported this, and given there is already controversy about his appointment to Georgia Public Broadcasting, and this is being reported in several Georgia media outlets, and could be a conflict of interest in a government-created job, it is noteworthy. I ask you to undo your edit. Peace Makes Plenty ( talk) 17:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Scott Alexander (politician). 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
[2] See also [3] to see the spoor of my very own personal stalker. Collect ( talk) 20:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you happen to have a source on it being used as an example of a bad movie by Disney? LM2000 ( talk) 20:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Since you used an edit summary to me of, "(cur | prev) 19:43, 17 September 2013 Collect (talk | contribs) . . (47,883 bytes) (+417) . . (→CCA found in contempt of court = WP:UNDUE?: hobgoblin of little minds?) (undo | thank)," [8] I am going to ask you to please not personally attack other editors in edit summaries or anywhere. It won't win consensus for your edits. Thank you. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 20:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC))
Edits like this one risk making you look a fool. As I know you are not a fool, I counsel you to think long and hard before making any further edits of this type. Are you in need of a Wikibreak, perhaps? -- John ( talk) 12:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if anyone notified you, but your !vote has been moved to an entirely different section and will apparently be discounted. [11] The same thing happened to my !vote, so I created an Abstain section where I repeated my concerns. [12] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Collect, Lionelt has given you a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie, for your faithful service and commitment to Wikipedia! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie! Enjoy! | |
I appreciate that you're unhappy about an ArbCom decision, and rightly so. But you say: "ArbCom has made the singular worst decision in its history." To know that, you would have had to have studied all of those decisions. Have you really done that? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
In requesting an edit summary removal by an IP at ANI, I referred to the analysis of the sources that you had done. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#request_BLP_edit_summary_blanking -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
This [13] was so obviously a topic ban violation my first instinct was to rat you out to WP:AE, and then I recalled how lame the arbcom decision was ... my second instinct was to fix the article, but then I'd be encouraging you to continue make ban violating edits. So I decided to do nothing and let someone else deal with it. Reviewing the situation and seeing getting into stupid arguments with AC clerks and an AE admin .. not good. I've spent enough time in the dark wiki-places to know that, yea, Wikipedia "governance" often sucks, but it's a better place if there are editors; and you losing the rest of your editing privileges in some Don Quixote quest for justice that will probably never happen will not make the encyclopedia a better place. Let it go, edit elsewhere, and either like the sanction clock out or appeal after the election to the new committee. NE Ent 01:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
=
I have started User:Collect/ACE2013 presenting the questions I feel will be salient to my support or opposition to any candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Please feel free to link to it on your own pages, of course. Cheers to all. Collect ( talk) 15:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
"The lady doth protest too much" is quote from Hamlet. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 21:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar | |
You are the pride and joy of Wikipedia! Without people like you Wikipedia would not move forward! Banaster Giver Extra Polite ( talk) 11:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC) |
Hey, could you clarify what you asking in your second question? I've read through it a few times and it's not quite clear to me yet. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 02:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
At User:Collect/ACE2013. Do I wish more had made some sort of answer? Yep. But I did find 13 qualified candidates IMHO, and ask that readers consider the results of this exercise with an open mind. Can candidates still answer the questions? Yep. The only absolutely wrong answers are "none" and any which suggest that the questions are invalid because "a quote was not a quote", or the like. Cheers to all. Collect ( talk) 18:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis
===ArbCom Election===\
My opinions as a result of a series of questions made of candidates and their responses are at User:Collect/ACE2013
As you are extremely active on the BLP noticeboards I am hoping you can help out with this problem as it has been discussed on the BLP noticeboard for over a week
[14] without any independent editors weighing in and commenting. An editor reverted three edits I made to the article
Franklin child prostitution ring allegations for "BLP violations." I went to the Talk page and requested clarification on how the edits violated BLP. The editor became abusive and three other editors came to Talk to support him, yet in four weeks of discussion none of the editors have quoted a single BLP policy that is being violated. The editors keep referring to personally "know[ing] that this incident is a hoax and a conspiracy theory,"
[15] making straw man arguments
[16] or making ambiguous claims of a BLP violation by citing the entire Wikipedia page
WP:BLP. The discussion was taken to the BLP noticeboard where the four editors are still declining to justify the reversions and are instead relying on
personal and
Ad hominem attacks in reply to my posts. The following are the three edits in question:
[17]
[18]
[19]
Also, in late November 2013, text that had been in the article since May 2012 was deleted for not being fully referenced, I replaced it with the missing reference
[20] only to see it immediately deleted with the comment "revert per BLP [as] it is not specific, accusatory, insinuation and guilt by association". This time a specific reason for the violation was eventually given (
WP:BLPCRIME) but I'm not sure it applies as a court of law, albeit civil, found the person in question guilty. I honestly can't see how the edits violate anything and would appreciate your input.
Wayne (
talk) 05:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
You have made a statement in the clarification request relating to Argentine History. This message is to let you know that a motion amending the original decision has now been proposed. You are welcome to add comments on this motion underneath your original statement. Thanks, AGK [•] 11:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Purrrr! | |
I didn't want to disappoint you by not acknowledging your witty comments/edit summaries at SPI. You brought a <g> to my face. L'Chaim! - Mr X 01:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC) |
|}
This looks to me like a clear violation of WP:POINT: [21] [22] What do you think? Roccodrift ( talk) 01:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Those seem to lean towards inappropriate edit summaries, discussed here and here. -- Jreferee ( talk) 14:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 19:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I did not think that MilesMoney was a sock of Steeletrap. However there could be a connection between Steeltrap and StillStanding-247, formerly 24.45.42.125, as both are from the tri-state area. MilesMoney reminds me of Dylan Flaherty, an editor you may remember. They are both from Toronto, edit articles about LGBT, Christianity and the American Right, get involved in BLP disputes and spend a lot of time at ANI, both as complainants and respondents. Dylan Flaherty was blocked 23 December 2010 and MilesMony appeared 16 July 2013. TFD ( talk) 02:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
MilesMoney is now fully disinvited from posting drivel on this talk page. TFD and I are "conspiring"? On what planet?
Collect (
talk) 06:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Miles -- Stay away - really! You were already asked here
To all lurkers:
User:MilesMoney is now community banned from all of Wikipedia. /He had indicated he would appeal the ban, but at this point two weeks later it does not appear he shall return.
Collect (
talk) 15:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ROG5728 ( talk) 14:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I posted a comment after yours on Jimbo's talk page on how FTC regulations may apply to certain cases of corporate editing on Wikipedia.
I was curious if you felt my commenting on such issues is appropriate, being that I myself often contribute with a COI. Some editors have given me barnstars for my contributions to the COI discussion, quoted me in other discussions and said I had great ideas, but there have been a couple cases where there was a "hey, don't you have a COI with COI!?"
I think I use to be inspired by the idea of being part of the solution, but I have since come to a more bleak forecast on whether it is a good use of my time. CorporateM ( Talk) 01:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Collect. I saw the article, which drew me to the Kenneth Fredette page. As I edited the talk page, you edited the comment controversy section in the article. I found another reference that seemed to place the matter in context and I edited the comment controversy section accordingly. -- Jreferee ( talk) 15:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I've requested clarification from ArbCom regarding Gun control and that article's possible inclusion in the Tea Party movement topic ban. Malke 2010 ( talk) 00:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Phil Robertson". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 00:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing at WP:RFC where there should be a new section separate from where the RfC template was placed. A new section indicates a discussion not related to the RfC. What if we just create a section specifically for the RfC (after my comment) and have the "Survey" and "Threaded discussion" subsections mentioned at WP:RFC? Unless you are looking at guidelines I haven't seen yet. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, I just making a general point on User talk:Jimbo and not opining on the content of this article. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your comment here, [23] is there a policy or guideline that actually says this? I thought there was, but when I looked up WP:HEADINGS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, I didn't see it. Perhaps I was thinking of WP:TALKNEW? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious about something. A few days ago, you basically accused me of following you around and hounding you, because I responded to a post of yours on User talk:Jimbo Wales (where I've been fairly active over the past year). That was sort of silly, but OK. Then yesterday, I posted to Wikipedia talk:Administrators—a page where you haven't set foot in several years—and you immediately jumped into the discussion to disagree with me.
I'm not suggesting that you should be disallowed from posting on Wikipedia talk:Administrators, regardless of how you arrived at that particular page and that particular discussion. I do think you should be a little more careful in throwing around implicit accusations of hounding, lest they seem unintentionally ironic or outright hypocritical. MastCell Talk 17:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, let's be clear. I'm not accusing you of anything except being too quick to throw around silly accusations of hounding. MastCell Talk 19:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I think that the message you left on my talk page about "bots do job better than people can" may have been intended for another editor as I don't understand how it applies to me. I assume you intended it for the editor who reverted your edits on the Rene Vilatte article. Cheers, Anglicanus ( talk) 02:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to take a round stone / And try to bounce or flip it...
And if you find a flat one / Then you might as well just SKIP IT!. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Option 2I appreciate your standing up and trying to do the right thing. There is clearly no consensus for Option 2, but the admin doesn't care. [37] ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Proposed
That an independent administrator re-examine the finding at [26] that "option 2" has a clear consensus for adoption in the TRM/BB/M AN/I discussion.
was posted by me at
WP:AN. Spillover may occur on this UT page, and I shall remove any intemperate comments. Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 22:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Now that you've reverted that troll again, do I need to have that list posted? If not, feel free to delete. It's a duplicate from my own talk page. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings either way but the capitals look right to me. I am a White man. An albino is a white man. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
This is kind of weird. I revert my edit to your version, you revert the reversion, changing it back to my version. You said, "When "white" is used as an adjective,..." Here Black is used as a noun, not an adjective. What are you thinking? Rick Norwood ( talk) 23:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm just reminding participants that East Germany falls within the scope WP:Discretionary sanctions per Arbcom here. Please see recent comments at talk:East Germany. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Nice word. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Editors would require five hundred good edits before they could substantially alter any prominent politician's biography. -- NeilN talk to me 21:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather ( talk) 04:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This article was mentioned on BLPN. Please take a look at it when you get a chance. Thanks. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 05:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The topic whose discussion you contributed to here seeks comment on its proposed resolution with consensus. Thanks. Evensteven ( talk) 20:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place here regarding the inclusion of File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg at Jimi Hendrix. GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 20:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I saw you attempting to root-out socks on Talk:Duck Dynasty, where I also made efforts to get some edits made.
After doing some investigation, I believe the following is true: MilesMoney clashed with me on Talk:Phil Robertson 1 Jan 2014, calling me and the Christian religion intolerant, in his special snarky way of course here. MilesMoney is blocked Jan. 2, 2014 for harrassment, battleground behaviour, 3RR and violating WP:AGF and is finally banned Jan 29, 2014. Shabeki suddenly appears Jan. 11 on Talk:Pamela Geller (MilesMoney was recently heavily editing there also) with same POVs pushing and biased attitude as MilesMoney. Shabeki suddenly shows up days after MilesMoney is banned - see editor interaction results here, very suspicious when Shabeki had not edited there in years. Shabeki also suddenly showed up on my Talk page making personal insults and saying I have an agenda. How would he know I have an agenda when I never had any interaction with 'Shabeki' before that. But I did interact with MilesMoney just days earlier, as I mentioned, and he wasn't pleasant and immediately assumed bad faith on my part. Shabeki hates ring-wing people, anyone he considers a Christian or Jew (non-Muslim), is hypersensitive about protecting Islam on wiki, assumes bad faith immediately and without cause, engages in 3RR and name-calling, and lies about others edits and comments. Same MO as MilesMoney. Both are highly experienced editors and know how to set-up editors to get blocked or banned. Exactly the behaviour Shabeki tried with me here on Talk:Red_Eye_w/Greg_Gutfeld#Gutfeld_and_sources_used_term_Ground_Zero_Mosque
This is Shabeki's 4th edit in Feb. 2007 here where he clearly already had interaction with FairNBalanced(a Jewish editor) and was getting in his last shots using a sockpuppet account he created just to do that. Another editor questioned Shabeki at the time about that and he gave very lame excuse. The record shows FairNBalance was not banned, he gave up in July 2006. Shabeki has edited same type articles as FairNBalanced edited(FNB from the Jewish POV, Shabeki from Muslim POV), so I believe they crossed paths many times before, but Shabeki was using another account(s), perhaps User:Timothy_Usher which is now indefinitly blocked.
IMHO, Shabeki is a pre-sock of MilesMoney. I believe further investigation using wiki sockpuppet detection tools will quickly show a high-correlation between edit histories, times of edits and place of edits, etc. I came to wiki to help improve it, I never expected to come under such a vicious personal attack just for reverting Shabeki's 3RR edit attempt back to what the original source and wiki editor wrote.--09:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Shabeki's 29 Jan. 2014 last comment at Talk:Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld (the very same day MilesMoney was banned from wiki): "The anon exposed his biases very well and has shown he's not fit to be an editor on wikipedia." Very familiar words to him that day?! He's(MM) been banned, so now he is trying desperately to get me banned as well using his pre-sock, as he was trying to do from his very first edit there personally attacking me relentlessly and vandalizing my comments. Can you help decide if I am right? -- 63.3.5.132 ( talk) 09:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
At the Criticism of Walmart article there is a section after External Links called News Articles. I wasn't sure if this is something that should be included. It seems odd. One would think that news links would be used as refs or inline citations, not stand-alone links. Could you take a peek? Fresh eyes would be appreciated. Capitalismojo ( talk) 21:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Collect. You undid my edit!! Whilst I do read some of Delingpole's Telegraph articles, and know that much of what he writes is tongue in cheek, I saw no reason to doubt that he was sympathetic to UKIP. The article was properly cited, are you saying it was a joke? Regards JRPG ( talk) 00:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for introducing me to the word chronophagous. An excellent description of all too many of the processes and discussions that go on here. ;-) Matt Deres ( talk) 01:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
How exactly is Iona Institute "of no relevance" to Pantigate? The group has been discussed in the mainstream media, including RTE, has been discussed in the European parliament, and this evening will be discussed in the Oireachtas. Paul Moloney ( talk) 16:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Re: Rick Scott reverts. First, the Guidelines for Further reading are not the same as those for External links. Second, you seem to be unaware that Ballotpedia is not a wiki in the the sense that Wikipedia is a wiki. Paid staff do almost all the writing, and review all contributions from the public before they appear. Therefore, your argument does not apply. As I said, feel free to support getting Template:GovLinks restored, as that is an alternative. 71.23.178.214 ( talk) 17:28, 6 February 2014 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Collect reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 17:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)