![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A tag has been placed on Charles Stoddard (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. OluwaCurtis »» ( talk to me) 15:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anna Politkovskaya. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know that the word draconian was derived from Draco (lawgiver). Thanks for that. Wbm1058 ( talk) 17:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. 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/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. 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/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 12:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Those who hold a position here because of what they "know to be the truth" are precisely analogous to those who favour or oppose any "truth" in the first place. Rather, we should divorce this from what we "know" or "believe" or "believe we know" and stick strictly to the precept that people should not be categorized for their beliefs except on the basis of categories they place themselves in by stating their own self-categorization. Else we are as bad as any who label folks on the basis of beliefs as "heretics" or "witches" or any other category susceptible of "guilt by association" tactics. I, for one, have always opposed "guilt by association" arguments on Wikipedia and in real life, and if I be the only one left in the world holding that personal belief, if I be the only one in the world in my self-identification in the category of "do not classify people because they differ from you in religion or any other belief at all" then I proudly assert my position in that category. Collect ( talk) 20:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
We couldn't have done it without you | |
Well, maybe. Eventually. But the encyclopedia would not be as good. Celebrate. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC) |
Removing an imaginary "article" from a dab page which is absolutely not in any way "US Politics related" is not an edit to a "US Politics related page" except to perhaps a stalker who has nothing better to do than do his dardenest to harass me. Collect ( talk) 16:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Full Service (book). Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm writing to you as someone very knowledgeable in reliable sources issues. I may bring this up at the noticeboard but I'd like some input from you on how best to do it, plus am looking for a second opinion to see if my point is valid.
If you could take a few seconds and listen to a clip at: this source
I'll try to make it as easy as possible: scroll down to item 7, then fast forward to 1:40, I'm interested in the phrase at 1:43.
The text states that he says "hundreds of thousands".
I heard "hundreds or thousands".
If you hear the same thing I hear, what is the proper next step? On the one hand we have a source which appears to qualify as a reliable source and there is no question that the text in the source claims a commentator referred to "hundreds of thousands" of scientists.
I think the answer is that we need another reliable source disputing the transcript and possibly an admission by Media Matters that they got it wrong. I don't think we can ask a number of editors to listen to the clip and take a vote, but I'm troubled that we had a BLP citing this claim. While it has been removed, it was removed on the basis that the source was not a reliable source and I don't think that will stand up, so it may get restored. I don't think the proper issue is whether Media Matters is reliable, but what to do if they make an obvious mistake.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 15:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Started of by saying the artist had the nose of Picasso ...
... and feet of Klee.
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Because it takes guts to stand up for what you believe... instead of following the crowd! MurderByDeadcopy "bang!" 23:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC) |
New adage for the day:
"A solution! Let admins block a dummy account"
Have you ever seen User:ThisIsaTest? Someone created a dummy account for testing, and wow does it have a long block log. Nyttend ( talk) 22:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fawaz Gerges. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of ministers of the Universal Life Church. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. When I transclude your voter guide (and the others) into a single page (to facilitate reading and comparisons), the resulting page becomes a member of the [[Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2015 voter guides]]. To correct that, the Category in your page should be protected by a pair of <noinclude>...</noinclude>. In the Main space, I would have done that by myself. In your Userspace, I think it is polite to ask your permission. Pldx1 ( talk) 18:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malala Yousafzai. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | On 28 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles S. Strong, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that noted explorer and aviator Charles S. Strong wrote The Hardy Boys book The Hooded Hawk Mystery and the Nancy Drew book The Scarlet Slipper Mystery, and once machine-gunned a shark from an airplane? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles S. Strong. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mariah Carey. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ivo Andrić. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Collect, would you mind explaining how you concluded that the material you removed here is copyvio? The link you provided in the edit summary isn't helping me figure out what/where the text is supposed to have been copied from, it appears to show a bunch of links that the tool found as unlikely matches, and unless I'm missing something it doesn't list a match for the text you removed at all. Thanks! Fyddlestix ( talk) 16:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Bolding indicates substantially identical wording. The likely alternative is that the Luton review plagiarized Wikipedia, in which event I assuredly apologize as I have found far too many examples of copyright violations the other way. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scott Baker (racing driver), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ARCA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Collect. Now it's over, while we're waiting for the results I can now expand on some of the thoughts I expressed during the campaign. Whether you supported or opposed my candidacy is of course entirely up to you - important is that you participated in the process. I would just like to put two concerns of yours in perspective. If one looks very closely, one will see that the questioners got the answers they deserve; there is no need to kowtow to them to get their vote. Whether or not I am offered a seat on the Committee is immaterial - I'm not sure I ever wanted to stand in the first place. If I am elected, I will concern myself with the day-to-day work of the Committee. If not, I will seek to bring about reforms of the electoral process, mainly focusing on the need for questions and voter guides to be at least objective and kept free of gender related and other socio-political barnstorming. I will be looking to you for support, and once again, thank you for taking part in this year's ACE. Regards, -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
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/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I want to thank you for your kind words. I am sorry that you had to endure a similar scrape with an unscrupulous user. Best wishes! Garagepunk66 ( talk) 00:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
http://www.imediaethics.org/nytimes-admits-not-fact-checking-errors-in-mario-vargas-llosa-review/ 7 Sep 2015
What is nice is this article states:
In short - the incorrect claims were plain and simple plagiarism by the writer at the NYT - who simply "borrowed" them from the Daily Mail
O tempora O mores
Collect ( talk) 22:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi there,
You are receiving this message as you have been involved with the Kevin Gorman Arbitration case. I just wanted to let you know that the case timetable has been changed - evidence now needs to be presented by 22 December 2015, the workshop closes 31 December 2015, and the Proposed decision is targeted to be posted 3 January 2016.
I would therefore be grateful if you could submit any additional evidence as soon as possible.
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Mdann52 ( talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Collect! Thanks for your involvement with the Edmund Janniger article. I do hope the article does not get deleted because of dormant accounts that reappeared for the AfD debate. Cachets687 ( talk) 14:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 14:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
And to all who read this page as well -- the best of all Christmases and holiday seasons ever - and a wonderful New Year! Collect ( talk) 15:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award |
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 23:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
Happy Christmas! | |
Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John ( talk) 18:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
And the same assuredly for you! Collect ( talk) 18:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Holidays Collect, I hope you like this Wiki-bauble I made and the fireworks to celebrate the holiday season. It is people like you that make Wikipedia great . Mi very best wishes for 2016!! --
Crystallizedcarbon (
talk)
22:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for your kind words indeed! And my very best wishes for you and your family this holiday season and for many to come.
Collect (
talk)
03:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.
The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:
1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.
3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.
6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
|
Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary
blisters. |
Collect,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regards,
Yamaguchi先生 (
talk)
22:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
And to you as well! Akemashite omedetou! to the dweller of the mountain forest
Collect (
talk)
22:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Lol Peter Damian ( talk) 14:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I reverted your removals. I think you need to discuss them on the talk page first. So far as I can tell, they're all legit. I know the book is - I've read it. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 22:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charli XCX. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Greetings. At least one of
your recent edits, such as the edit you made to
Universal Life Church, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be
reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Me-123567-Me (
talk)
22:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
A suggestion - Don't forget to check out the templates used for citations over at WP:CITECONSENSUS. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 22:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I am curious as to which policy says a non-admin can remove a speedy tag. Thanks. :-) Me-123567-Me ( talk) 20:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
EauZenCashHaveIt ( I'm All Ears) 06:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Apparently you and I have been warned. See also. — Strongjam ( talk) 20:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. There is an ongoing discussion regarding the Edmund Janniger article. Thanks. Cachets687 ( talk) 02:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The BLP Barnstar | |
I've long admired your responses on the noticeboards and dedication to BLP issues. Thanks for making wikipedia a better place! Darouet ( talk) 19:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC) |
Darouet Thank you most sincerely! Though at times the battles may be lost, I trust the war to make Wikipedia actually follow up on its promises in its policies will eventually be won.
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Harold Holt. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I own a copy of the authoritative, definitive biography of Holt by a highly reputable biographer, which covers his life in detail and contains numerous references to Gillespie, the most relevant bits of which I have reproduced on the talk page. It says rather a lot that in your every interaction you adamantly ignore the definitive biography of the man and instead quote a much shorter article from an American magazine so that you can push some fantastical conspiracy theory (notably, not one his biographer takes seriously enough to mention, or that I have even ever heard of before) and have the bizarre gall to try and claim it's a RS issue. (As other people have mentioned, it's even got more backing in Holt's wife's memoirs than the bizarre line you're pushing. There are plenty of ways Holt's well-documented relationship with Holt could be described, many of which are superior to the oversimplified text that started this, but your obsession with conspiracy theories is absurd and your determination to ignore any other source than that magazine article so you can obsess upon them needs to stop. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 21:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick note. Please don't remove correct references from the list. But thank you for your help with fighting vandals and the cleanup you have done. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 01:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award |
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 22:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
IIRC - I've disagreed with you here and there, but I did want to note something. Throughout the crat-chat discussions, I often found myself nodding in agreement, and thinking "what he said" while reading some of your posts. There were times that I struggled with how to express my thoughts, and found that you managed to convey them.
Rather than clog up your "Thanks notification", I thought I'd express my appreciation for your positive contributions to a difficult/divisive/ground-breaking/potentially frustrating(?) series of events and discussions in person.
Thanks, — Ched : ? 20:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russell Wilson. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It had already been closed by a bot, they just didn't put the tags and summary on. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 18:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I indicated this before. Now I ask you to stop. Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 14:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Frankly your Scientology-related edits are making me all too worried that you might possibly in some way have some sort of COI yourself. Now shut the eff up on this page Clear? You are absolutely unwelcome here. Your edits about living persons are egregious and full of ... POV. Fare thee well. And note the number of edits I make -- if I were stalking you, there would be some sort of sign - but since I find mentions of BLPs on many pages (including BLP/N, COI/N and a bunch of other places), it is rather more likely that I find them quite nicely on my own. And that is actually the fact. Collect ( talk) 15:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
For readers: I had the nerve to add one cite where he noted that a citation was needed.
[3] I removed a claim that since he had a connection, however tenuous, to
Margaret Singer that material deprecatory to her thus belonged in his BLP. For some weird reason, it looked like about as clear cut a "guilt by association" claim as ever made in any BLP. If the source does not mention Wollersheim at all (not even en passant) in its 288 pages, it should not be used in his BLP. Right?
Collect (
talk)
15:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cher. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A tag has been placed on Charles Stoddard (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. OluwaCurtis »» ( talk to me) 15:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anna Politkovskaya. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know that the word draconian was derived from Draco (lawgiver). Thanks for that. Wbm1058 ( talk) 17:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. 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/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. 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/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 12:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Those who hold a position here because of what they "know to be the truth" are precisely analogous to those who favour or oppose any "truth" in the first place. Rather, we should divorce this from what we "know" or "believe" or "believe we know" and stick strictly to the precept that people should not be categorized for their beliefs except on the basis of categories they place themselves in by stating their own self-categorization. Else we are as bad as any who label folks on the basis of beliefs as "heretics" or "witches" or any other category susceptible of "guilt by association" tactics. I, for one, have always opposed "guilt by association" arguments on Wikipedia and in real life, and if I be the only one left in the world holding that personal belief, if I be the only one in the world in my self-identification in the category of "do not classify people because they differ from you in religion or any other belief at all" then I proudly assert my position in that category. Collect ( talk) 20:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
We couldn't have done it without you | |
Well, maybe. Eventually. But the encyclopedia would not be as good. Celebrate. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC) |
Removing an imaginary "article" from a dab page which is absolutely not in any way "US Politics related" is not an edit to a "US Politics related page" except to perhaps a stalker who has nothing better to do than do his dardenest to harass me. Collect ( talk) 16:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Full Service (book). Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm writing to you as someone very knowledgeable in reliable sources issues. I may bring this up at the noticeboard but I'd like some input from you on how best to do it, plus am looking for a second opinion to see if my point is valid.
If you could take a few seconds and listen to a clip at: this source
I'll try to make it as easy as possible: scroll down to item 7, then fast forward to 1:40, I'm interested in the phrase at 1:43.
The text states that he says "hundreds of thousands".
I heard "hundreds or thousands".
If you hear the same thing I hear, what is the proper next step? On the one hand we have a source which appears to qualify as a reliable source and there is no question that the text in the source claims a commentator referred to "hundreds of thousands" of scientists.
I think the answer is that we need another reliable source disputing the transcript and possibly an admission by Media Matters that they got it wrong. I don't think we can ask a number of editors to listen to the clip and take a vote, but I'm troubled that we had a BLP citing this claim. While it has been removed, it was removed on the basis that the source was not a reliable source and I don't think that will stand up, so it may get restored. I don't think the proper issue is whether Media Matters is reliable, but what to do if they make an obvious mistake.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 15:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Started of by saying the artist had the nose of Picasso ...
... and feet of Klee.
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Because it takes guts to stand up for what you believe... instead of following the crowd! MurderByDeadcopy "bang!" 23:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC) |
New adage for the day:
"A solution! Let admins block a dummy account"
Have you ever seen User:ThisIsaTest? Someone created a dummy account for testing, and wow does it have a long block log. Nyttend ( talk) 22:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fawaz Gerges. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of ministers of the Universal Life Church. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. When I transclude your voter guide (and the others) into a single page (to facilitate reading and comparisons), the resulting page becomes a member of the [[Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2015 voter guides]]. To correct that, the Category in your page should be protected by a pair of <noinclude>...</noinclude>. In the Main space, I would have done that by myself. In your Userspace, I think it is polite to ask your permission. Pldx1 ( talk) 18:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malala Yousafzai. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | On 28 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles S. Strong, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that noted explorer and aviator Charles S. Strong wrote The Hardy Boys book The Hooded Hawk Mystery and the Nancy Drew book The Scarlet Slipper Mystery, and once machine-gunned a shark from an airplane? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles S. Strong. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mariah Carey. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ivo Andrić. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Collect, would you mind explaining how you concluded that the material you removed here is copyvio? The link you provided in the edit summary isn't helping me figure out what/where the text is supposed to have been copied from, it appears to show a bunch of links that the tool found as unlikely matches, and unless I'm missing something it doesn't list a match for the text you removed at all. Thanks! Fyddlestix ( talk) 16:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Bolding indicates substantially identical wording. The likely alternative is that the Luton review plagiarized Wikipedia, in which event I assuredly apologize as I have found far too many examples of copyright violations the other way. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scott Baker (racing driver), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ARCA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Collect. Now it's over, while we're waiting for the results I can now expand on some of the thoughts I expressed during the campaign. Whether you supported or opposed my candidacy is of course entirely up to you - important is that you participated in the process. I would just like to put two concerns of yours in perspective. If one looks very closely, one will see that the questioners got the answers they deserve; there is no need to kowtow to them to get their vote. Whether or not I am offered a seat on the Committee is immaterial - I'm not sure I ever wanted to stand in the first place. If I am elected, I will concern myself with the day-to-day work of the Committee. If not, I will seek to bring about reforms of the electoral process, mainly focusing on the need for questions and voter guides to be at least objective and kept free of gender related and other socio-political barnstorming. I will be looking to you for support, and once again, thank you for taking part in this year's ACE. Regards, -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
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/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I want to thank you for your kind words. I am sorry that you had to endure a similar scrape with an unscrupulous user. Best wishes! Garagepunk66 ( talk) 00:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
http://www.imediaethics.org/nytimes-admits-not-fact-checking-errors-in-mario-vargas-llosa-review/ 7 Sep 2015
What is nice is this article states:
In short - the incorrect claims were plain and simple plagiarism by the writer at the NYT - who simply "borrowed" them from the Daily Mail
O tempora O mores
Collect ( talk) 22:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi there,
You are receiving this message as you have been involved with the Kevin Gorman Arbitration case. I just wanted to let you know that the case timetable has been changed - evidence now needs to be presented by 22 December 2015, the workshop closes 31 December 2015, and the Proposed decision is targeted to be posted 3 January 2016.
I would therefore be grateful if you could submit any additional evidence as soon as possible.
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Mdann52 ( talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Collect! Thanks for your involvement with the Edmund Janniger article. I do hope the article does not get deleted because of dormant accounts that reappeared for the AfD debate. Cachets687 ( talk) 14:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 14:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
And to all who read this page as well -- the best of all Christmases and holiday seasons ever - and a wonderful New Year! Collect ( talk) 15:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award |
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 23:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
Happy Christmas! | |
Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John ( talk) 18:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
And the same assuredly for you! Collect ( talk) 18:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Holidays Collect, I hope you like this Wiki-bauble I made and the fireworks to celebrate the holiday season. It is people like you that make Wikipedia great . Mi very best wishes for 2016!! --
Crystallizedcarbon (
talk)
22:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for your kind words indeed! And my very best wishes for you and your family this holiday season and for many to come.
Collect (
talk)
03:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.
The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:
1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.
3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.
6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
|
Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary
blisters. |
Collect,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regards,
Yamaguchi先生 (
talk)
22:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
And to you as well! Akemashite omedetou! to the dweller of the mountain forest
Collect (
talk)
22:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Lol Peter Damian ( talk) 14:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I reverted your removals. I think you need to discuss them on the talk page first. So far as I can tell, they're all legit. I know the book is - I've read it. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 22:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charli XCX. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Greetings. At least one of
your recent edits, such as the edit you made to
Universal Life Church, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be
reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Me-123567-Me (
talk)
22:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
A suggestion - Don't forget to check out the templates used for citations over at WP:CITECONSENSUS. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 22:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I am curious as to which policy says a non-admin can remove a speedy tag. Thanks. :-) Me-123567-Me ( talk) 20:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
EauZenCashHaveIt ( I'm All Ears) 06:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Apparently you and I have been warned. See also. — Strongjam ( talk) 20:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. There is an ongoing discussion regarding the Edmund Janniger article. Thanks. Cachets687 ( talk) 02:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The BLP Barnstar | |
I've long admired your responses on the noticeboards and dedication to BLP issues. Thanks for making wikipedia a better place! Darouet ( talk) 19:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC) |
Darouet Thank you most sincerely! Though at times the battles may be lost, I trust the war to make Wikipedia actually follow up on its promises in its policies will eventually be won.
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Harold Holt. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I own a copy of the authoritative, definitive biography of Holt by a highly reputable biographer, which covers his life in detail and contains numerous references to Gillespie, the most relevant bits of which I have reproduced on the talk page. It says rather a lot that in your every interaction you adamantly ignore the definitive biography of the man and instead quote a much shorter article from an American magazine so that you can push some fantastical conspiracy theory (notably, not one his biographer takes seriously enough to mention, or that I have even ever heard of before) and have the bizarre gall to try and claim it's a RS issue. (As other people have mentioned, it's even got more backing in Holt's wife's memoirs than the bizarre line you're pushing. There are plenty of ways Holt's well-documented relationship with Holt could be described, many of which are superior to the oversimplified text that started this, but your obsession with conspiracy theories is absurd and your determination to ignore any other source than that magazine article so you can obsess upon them needs to stop. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 21:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick note. Please don't remove correct references from the list. But thank you for your help with fighting vandals and the cleanup you have done. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 01:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award |
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 22:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
IIRC - I've disagreed with you here and there, but I did want to note something. Throughout the crat-chat discussions, I often found myself nodding in agreement, and thinking "what he said" while reading some of your posts. There were times that I struggled with how to express my thoughts, and found that you managed to convey them.
Rather than clog up your "Thanks notification", I thought I'd express my appreciation for your positive contributions to a difficult/divisive/ground-breaking/potentially frustrating(?) series of events and discussions in person.
Thanks, — Ched : ? 20:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russell Wilson. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It had already been closed by a bot, they just didn't put the tags and summary on. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 18:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I indicated this before. Now I ask you to stop. Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 14:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Frankly your Scientology-related edits are making me all too worried that you might possibly in some way have some sort of COI yourself. Now shut the eff up on this page Clear? You are absolutely unwelcome here. Your edits about living persons are egregious and full of ... POV. Fare thee well. And note the number of edits I make -- if I were stalking you, there would be some sort of sign - but since I find mentions of BLPs on many pages (including BLP/N, COI/N and a bunch of other places), it is rather more likely that I find them quite nicely on my own. And that is actually the fact. Collect ( talk) 15:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
For readers: I had the nerve to add one cite where he noted that a citation was needed.
[3] I removed a claim that since he had a connection, however tenuous, to
Margaret Singer that material deprecatory to her thus belonged in his BLP. For some weird reason, it looked like about as clear cut a "guilt by association" claim as ever made in any BLP. If the source does not mention Wollersheim at all (not even en passant) in its 288 pages, it should not be used in his BLP. Right?
Collect (
talk)
15:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cher. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)