User talk:Collect/Archive 34

Speedy deletion nomination of Charles Stoddard (disambiguation)

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

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

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)

Please comment on Talk:Anna Politkovskaya

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)

Draco

I didn't know that the word draconian was derived from Draco (lawgiver). Thanks for that. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

My fault <g> - I have a semi-eidetic memory for quite useless information. Collect (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

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)

Sisu 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

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)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

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)

Credo

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)

On guilt by association, which is a logical fallacy, it brings to mind the words of Professor Leslie, who taught me English Constitutional History many many years ago. :

"Birds of a feather

Flock together

And so do pigs and swine.

Rats and mice shall have their choice,

And so I shall have mine."

There is a right to associate (or not). And tied to that is the free exchange of ideas in this forum. These concepts ought not to be infringed here.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

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)

5 Million: We celebrate your contribution

	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)

FWIW

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)

Please comment on Talk:Full Service (book)

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)

Reliable sources question

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)

I also hear "hundreds or thousands" and note the sites stressing the "of" are all making fun of a black commentator who is on Fox. Best solution is to see if he routinely uses either phrase and Google is our friend - Murdock routinely uses "hundreds or thousands" as a phrase, and does not use "hundreds of thousands" with regard to numbers of debaters. [1]] shows precisely where the original quote was made (Senate Minority Report):

The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK)

In short - the misheard "hundreds of thousands" is a natural transcription error for a person hoping to hear "of" - and is all-too-common where an official transcript is not provided. See Mondegreen Collect (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

As I have noted elsewhere - "official transcripts" are far better than any video as a source, or any source relying on its own version of the video. I have listened through entire BBC programme presented as a "source" only to discover the programme did not remotely support the claim made for it. Collect (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you - good advice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Art Critic

Started of by saying the artist had the nose of Picasso ...

... and feet of Klee.

Clever--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	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 marathon is not won at the starting line, but at the finish line. So in life, where one starts is far less important than where one ends up as a person, and if that means standing up for what one believes, then one shall have won the race.

WT:RFA on admin stats

"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)

Voila! (Yes - I had heard of it - but it is an elegant solution to the problem posed <g>) Collect (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Aside not related to the comment

And each of us here should remember that the conflicts here on Wikipedia are less than nothing when stood against the sacrifices that created the world that allows us our little dramas. Jbh^Talk 14:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fawaz Gerges

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)

Please comment on Talk:List of ministers of the Universal Life Church

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)

Your voter guide

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)

Please comment on Talk:Malala Yousafzai

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)

DYK for Charles S. Strong

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mariah Carey

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)

Please comment on Talk:Ivo Andrić

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)

Alleged Copyvio

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)

The text I removed was "After his editor suggested he write a picture book for younger readers, McBratney began working with illustrator Anita Jeram on Guess How Much I Love You, which was first published by Walker Books in 1994. The book became popular quickly, selling more than 150 thousand copies within four months of its publication. By September 1995, it had sold more than a million copies worldwide. Popular as a gift for new parents, weddings, and other special occasions, the book has become a modern classic and sales have continued to climb. It is frequently listed among the most popular and best selling children's books of all time."

Compare with results for Luton Today as a "2013 review" http://www.lutontoday.co.uk/news/local/sam-s-bedtime-story-soaring-still-1-6628692:

After his editor suggested he write a picture-book for younger readers, Sam began working with illustrator Anita Jeram on Guess How Much I Love You, which was first published by Walker Books in 1994. The book became popular quickly, selling more than 150 thousand copies within four months of its publication and by September 1995 it had sold more than a million.

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)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

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)

ACE2015

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)

I looked only at the answers to the uniform questions I asked - and my grading was based on my comments on my ACE page. With best wishes to all, Collect (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting

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)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

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)

Thank you for your kind words

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)

The New York Times vaunted accuracy and fact-checking

http://www.imediaethics.org/nytimes-admits-not-fact-checking-errors-in-mario-vargas-llosa-review/ 7 Sep 2015

The Aug. 23 editor’s note reads: “An earlier version of this review, in discussing Mario Vargas Llosa’s relationship with Isabel Preysler, stated that Vargas Llosa announced the relationship on a Twitter account and that he sold related photographs and an ‘exclusive’ story to Hola!, a popular Spanish magazine, for a large amount of money. After the review was published, Vargas Llosa contacted The Times to say that none of these assertions were true. “In reviewing this complaint, editors determined that the reviewer had based his account of these matters mostly on information from an article about Vargas Llosa in The Daily Mail, but neither the reviewer nor editors independently verified those statements. Using such information is at odds with The Times’s journalistic standards, and it should not have been included in the review.”

What is nice is this article states:

The false claims came from the Daily Mail, but the Times didn’t attribute or credit the Mail, according to the Washington Post‘s Erik Wemple. “The piece, as originally published, never credited the Daily Mail for the details,” Wemple reported. “It merely stated them as fact.”

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)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

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)

Please comment on Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson

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)

Edmund Janniger

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)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

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)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

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)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	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!

		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)

Season's Greetings!!

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)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

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)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

"The mountain has laboured ... " Collect (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Collect!

Happy New Year!

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)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

And to you as well! Akemashite omedetou! to the dweller of the mountain forest Collect (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Cosby

Lol Peter Damian (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

List of ministers of the Universal Life Church

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)

Interesting - I assume you know that Ashmore's work is self-published, and nndb.com is deprecated as a source for anything at all, etc.? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charli XCX

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)

January 2016

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)

Um -- do you really, really think in your wildest imagination that an article on a "church" should be essentially the church's own website description of itself? Really? Collect (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No I do not, but you're removing sourced material. Some of it could simply be reworded. Some does need removal, yes. Some need better sources. It's not perfect. But then what article is? --Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Using a church website for extensive and precisely quoted material is WP:SPS territory. Then you removed the IRS material which was absolutely and precisely cited! Might you explain? Collect (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will re-add the IRS material. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:17, 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)

And note that I have actually done a fair number of edits on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:51, 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)

• Here is a discussion of this in the context of a real article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see the instructions included in Template:db, the template used to nominate pages for speedy deletion. Any editor other than the creator of the page can remove a speedy deletion template if they either feel the page doesn't meet the criteria of the template or if they have fixed or intend to fix the problem. The corresponding policy is found at WP:Speedy. General Ization ^Talk 20:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Bryan Cranston

Hello, Collect. You have new messages at Talk:Bryan Cranston#Sourcing a claim.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Danczuk

Apparently you and I have been warned. See also. — Strongjam (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I wonder who this 20-edit person actually is. Seems awfully interested in this single BLP, alas. Collect (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson

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)

Administrators' noticeboard

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)

Protecting biographies on Wikipedia

		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.

Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren

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)

Please comment on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks

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)

Please comment on Talk:Harold Holt

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)

Please comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina

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)

Holt

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)

The rule is: If you cite a source for a claim and the source does not support the claim, it is not allowed. This is not a "conspiracy theory" on my part, it is simply policy. The source provided, Smithsonian Magazine, was the source for the "fake death" theory and rumours. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

List of ministers of the Universal Life Church

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)

Only noted that the "source" is published by ... the Universal Life Church. And no one defended it at RS/N. Collect (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Still a source. Still reliable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest WP:SPS shows why its reliability for people who are not self-identified with ULC might be an issue. Ashmore, himself, is self-identified as part of ULC, etc. but a lot of "famous people" are not identified except by ULC. (" it does not involve claims about third parties;" is what a self-published source 'may' be used for) Simple. Else any organization claiming to be (fictitious group) "Knights of Philip" could claim dozens of dead people as members. ULC claiming the US' most-famous atheist as an "ordained minister" is likely pushing things, etc. Collect (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	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)

Supports, Opposes, Consensus, and other broken things.

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)

Thank you. I would point out that it is through disagreement that we learn, and thus I would be absolutely aghast to find anyone I always agreed with, or who always agreed with me. All I ask is that folks understand that I do not keep (and have never kept) "enemies lists" of any sort, nor do I edit with any "point of view" other than trying to make something which will be regarded as properly stated in the next century. I do my best to express what I think is right as much as possible. Sometimes I have been accused of misdeeds, but I hope that a fair reading a century from now will show I was right as much as anyone can hope to be on many topics here. With best regards, Collect (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I hope you won't mind if I pull up a chair here also, as I want to respond to your comment here but do not want to continue discussion at an expired venue. What I'd like to ask is: how should bureaucrats assess or weigh the strength of a bare support? Do we do it based on the voter themselves? If we do, isn't that considering some voters more equal than others? Should a bare support from an administrator carry more weight than a bare support from a non-administrator? Perhaps a bare support early in the nomination (before reasoned opposition) would carry less weight than a bare support at the end (when opposition has already mounted). Presumably the later voter reviewed the opposition and still supports the candidacy. Is such a presumption safe? What about the earlier bare support-can we assume they've kept along with the debate and still support the candidacy? -they weren't at all eloquent in their support statement. How do we know their bare support wasn't a "Why not?" vote cast before all the reasons-why-not were fleshed out and they haven't had the opportunity to revisit the RfA and realize the error of their vote (that there were indeed well-founded reasons why not)? Does any of this shed light on why I feel bare supports do not assist in the consensus building at RfA? [Please note this is all hypothetical, not referring to any particular participant in the recent candidacy. I rather like your remark above about "learning through disagreement".] –xeno^talk 01:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I really do not claim I know the perfect solution (nor do I think anyone here has such hubris). In the case of a vote of "support", it is reasonable to assume it means "the person did not find a reason to oppose" and to ask people to come up with nicely unique reasons for support is not really all that logical. Historically, the vast majority of "supports" were without individually expressed rationales, and so it is likely that this was discussed in the past at some point.

Clearly in a community where "the mop" is officially "no big deal" it would cause an uproar indeed to assign greater weight to the vote of an administrator with (say) 5,000 article edits over the weight for an editor with 100,000 article edits. So we can mark that idea off pretty quickly.

More likely would be to start off by discounting votes from editors with under (say) 1,000 mainspace edits as being less likely to understand the nuances of the policies being discussed. We should likely also underweigh votes of editors who are voting either out of "we have too many admins" (clearly invalid with regard to the individual candidate as a reason), on the one hand, as being basically a vote against the process in the first place, and some who do not present any sign that they are concerned about any area in which the candidate is likely to be involved as an administrator.

Concerns about deletion criteria, strength of BLP and other policies, understanding of the various areas of interaction on Wikipedia etc. are generally concerns of general validity.

Concerns about personality and the like are of far more interesting connotations in general - I think it would take a few thousand words to sort out what should and what should not be weighed heavily. Which types of personality issues would you weigh most heavily? I know as an editor that plagiarism, especially where the person suggests that it is "not important" is a strong issue, and that I would weigh that quite heavily.

I do fear that I regard "ritual self-flagellation" is, at best, a meaningless exercise, and, at worst, sometimes aimed at quite the wrong person. Wikipedia does not lend itself to such theological positions very well at all.

"If I Were King of the Forest" <g>, I do not know exactly what I would do about this - but it is important to discuss it in any event. Perhaps we should have a "+100 supports" rule rather than "an oppose is worth two supports"? I do know the RfA election system is one which no other society on earth uses, as far as I can tell <g>. And I also suggest "Polish up the handle on the big front door" might be how future candidates deal with this outré tradition of Wikipedia, rather than actually be willing to make opinions known to anyone at all. In any event - a short start to what you asked for, I trust. Your view? Collect (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"There isn't any magic, but your no is still stronger than your yes, and distrust is where I put my faith." –xeno^talk 02:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've met a few authors (Asimov, Pohl, Gernsback etc.) but not Elkin. He might have been interesting to talk with. For myself, Socrates works well enough - can you imagine how he would have viewed a person who had no questions? Collect (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) OK - unless Collect minds his page being filled with walls of text: I'll opine.
• First a few of the easy ones: Should Crats give weight to "who" ... absolutely not. With one caveat: When Arbs who stood in judgment opine - I think that does have to be considered.
• In general: I think that "support" is a default (at least for me), simply because I feel that those extra buttons should not be sequestered. We're all here to build a knowledge-base, the more tools one has, the easier it is to work. Now the kicker here for me is that if you've had the tools, and you've had them forceably removed - then the burden is on the requester to show that they have undergone a change which negates prior behavior.
• The whole "they discounted my vote" thing was utter bullshit. If their votes were discounted, there never would have been a crat chat.
• One thing to keep in mind: The crats are subjected to a much higher standard than any single position - and that includes Arbcom and those who get positions on the board at the WMF. You folks were selected because you listen, you're objective, you're fair, and you're always looking to the community for input. The community cries out for transpa.rency, and yet when you put every thought out there of how your reached a decision - you get "how dare you" posts. I think it's human nature to search for faults - don't let the nature that makes you who you are that we trust, become a cauldron of self-doubt.

• NOW - regarding the issue of "grudges" ... that's a huge issue that this project is going to have to deal with - and I'm more than willing to voice my thoughts on that. But perhaps that's a different thread to be had. — Ched :  ?  03:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to opine - the faux Voltaire quote holds true here (you can read any of my essays to see my general opinions). I disagree that Arbs who had "judged" a person should then be given any greater weight in any election or discussion - they are absolutely as fallible as anyone else (some even more so <g>), and to argue that they somehow are superior or that their opinions are superior, I find to be somewhat problematic. In fact, I would suggest that anyone who has participated in any "formal decision" about anything should not comment further than to note the decision. Arbitrators are very much a "political election" on Wikipedia, and have, to me, the same intrinsic believability that MPs or Senators have. This would change if we had people chosen on the basis of being formally trained as arbitrators, but I find no sign of any such training as a rule.

Now - your opinions on grudges, "enemies lists", and the abhorrent (IMHO) practice of any editor invariably being in disagreement on massive numbers of issues whenever a specific editor opines - and where that editor has not done the equivalent (even genially agreeing with that person when warranted)? Collect (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Allow me to muddy the waters for all involved. Which is a "stronger" vote, saying "per nom" only, or my vote [2] in a different and ongoing RFA, where I've taken the time to explain in detail my opinion. Tread carefully.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually and historically, the primary direct and implicit "reason for support" is "no reason found to oppose" - the "per nom" bit is pretty meaningless as a rule. Wikipedia has in the past decided that "oppose" votes in such an election do require some sort of rationale.

As I noted above, this is the exact reverse of XfD where the "argument for deletion" must be given as "no consensus" defaults to "keep." Here "no consensus" defaults to "not elected." Your "support" at an RfA, IMO, is more a comment on another editor's rationale than it is an explanation of your own position. It has nothing which would not have been of equal actual value had you posted it under "comments" or even on the RfA talk page. Or, indeed, been posted as a comment to Cunard's vote or to any comments he might make in the later comments section or on the RfA talk page.

I would note that I find Cunard's vote to be a tad excessive in length - the nature of his objections could have been given in four sentences at most, with the "uncut version" given in the following comments section or on the talk page. Collect (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I see it differently, but before I explain, I'm genuinely interested in what xeno (and others) has to say. Because it is an example outside the Hawkeye case, I think it might offer some insight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"It" being what? the length (excessive) of Cunard's rationale (IMO) or the use of a "support" vote to engage in a singular colloquy with another person who is not engaging you in a conversation on the topic? Do you really feel it was more important to discuss Cunard's rationale in your "support" vote than it would be to place it in "general comments" or as a short reply to his "oppose"? In such a case, I respectfully demur. Collect (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Briefly, I would agree that a support that says "I have reviewed oppose reason x but still support the candidate because (reasons)" is stronger than a bare support. (I'm kinda busy today but I do want to get back to the other points being made in this discussion.) –xeno^talk 15:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

When it gets to be way more than a bare mention of the other person's vote - it becomes "discussion" IMO <g>. Collect (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Speaking as the person that cast the vote and who closes a fair amount of discussions: It is a qualified support with instructions to the candidate, so if it was in the discretion zone, it would be considered a slightly weak support. There is hesitation in the vote, and the hesitation is explained more than the supporting factors. It says "I thought about opposing and agree with the opposer that this is a concern, but decided to not use that as a reason, and otherwise the person simply meets the basic criteria for admin." And Collect, I didn't reply to Cunard because I wasn't trying to persuade or debate with him nor was I asking for clarification. I was stating his rationale formed the basis of my weak support, just as a couple below me used my rationale as the basis for their supports and at least used my support as the rationale for their oppose. ie: they are just barely on the other side of the fence but agree on the particulars. At close, I would expect the Crats to see those votes as somewhat tepid support, similar to "per nom" or "why not", although they add to the discussion, where as the two word votes do not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, what I probably should have said is such a comment lends itself to weighting (either to the strong or the weak) easier than a bare support, which provides no guidance whatsoever. –xeno^talk 15:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I might be able to view a "very weak support" as being essentially "neutral" in case of a close decision - but the risk is that telling people that "strong support" makes their non-opposition into a "super vote" is something I would not wish on anyone. Nor would I count a "strong oppose" as being an especially strong vote in weight. What would happen is that tonnes of folks would add "strong" just to make sure they outshout others. Hence - maybe consider "weak" votes as being "discount this in case of a close call" but do not consider "strong" as being a super-value vote. Collect (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• having issues w/laptop and motel Wi-Fi. Back asap (Ched) 206.123.253.82 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russell Wilson

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)

Re: closing an RfC

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)

Try reading WP:RfC -- the bot does not "close the RfC" - it simply removes the header at the end of a month. Your close is absolutely against policy - please undo it now. Collect (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You didn't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You could have left the archive bot I added. As for the actual close - meh. Remove the tags, let someone else close it... or not. Next time please reply on my talk page. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

From the top of my talk page, terms which you accepted when you left a message: Welcome to my talk page. If I leave a message on your talk page, please reply here. If you leave a message for me, I'll reply on your talk page. I'd much rather be editing than have to watch your talk page. Please leave your message in English, and please sign your comments with Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Please be logged in, messages from anonymous users will be deleted without comment. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:AGF. The ULC lists people as "ordained ministers" for which absolutely no other actual source is backing the claim up. I can start the "MeToo Church" and list Benjamin Franklin as an "ordained minister" in it - and I trust you would find that a "reliable source" for the claim? By the way the snarky "leave your comments in English" is not going to impress any of the hundreds of talk page followers here one whit. Or wit. Collect (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Collect (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You are stalking me

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)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person

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)

Please comment on Talk:Cher

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cher. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)