User talk:Collect/Archive 37

Please comment on Talk:Laura Prepon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laura Prepon. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gisele Bündchen

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gisele Bündchen. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fabolous

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fabolous. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bob Stoops

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bob Stoops. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James Jamerson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James Jamerson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Qaboos bin Said al Said

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Qaboos bin Said al Said. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox economist

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox economist. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dan Wagner

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dan Wagner. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Halimah Yacob

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Halimah Yacob. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Randy Quaid

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Randy Quaid. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

BLP question

I am hoping I can lean on your BLP expertise once again.

Someone wrote into Wikimedia via OTRS. Another agent had handled this in the past but is not in a position to respond to this concern so I decided to jump in and see if I could help.

The article is Deborah Copaken. One issue is the inclusion of:

• "a media power babe";
• "Battlefield Barbie"
• "headstrong homecoming queen."

in the lead.

The quotes are real, and the sources are fine.

The first phrase is in the article (although it should be "a media powerbabe"). The other two phrases are also in the article although they are in the headline not in the main text. On the one hand, this means they weren't the word choice of the author of the article, but it does mean they are the word choice of an employee of the publication. Within the last week, I removed a word from an article which appeared in the click bait headline but was not supported by the text of the article itself. I think I was fully justified in that case, but I see this as a closer call. "Battlefield Barbie" is obviously evocative, but unlike the other situation where I felt comfortable removing a word not supported by the article, the text of the article makes two references to Barbie — "inner Pippi Longstocking under a lacquered Barbie mask" and "like a paean to Barbie who-hood." Those two phrases make it harder to argue that the headline is pure click bait unsupported by the text of the article.

I also note that the subject self-titled her first book "shutterbabe". I don't know whether it was intended to be descriptive or ironic, but if she herself use the term it's a bit hard to argue that the use of the word "babe" is problematic.

I was initially thinking that the phrases might be a bit too much, especially as I thought it might be the case they were well supported by the articles themselves but I see that as a closer call now. However, I believe we appropriately make a distinction between what belongs in the lead and what belongs in the main section of an article. As I understand it, the lead is supposed to be summary/synthesis of the key points of the article these three quotes in the two referenced articles do not make an appearance in the main text. At a minimum, if they deserve inclusion they should appear in the main text I'll go further and argue that they do not belong in the lead.

There is one other issue that I think is much easier to address. The subject,s second novel "the Red Book" is discussed in the career section along with some rather negative excerpts of a review. React in the business of excluding something simply because it is negative, but I'll suggest that this review, Including this quote " smart, funny, engrossing, and action-packed meditation on women’s lives, growing up, having and not having it all" should be included for balance.

As always, interested in your thoughts.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Taking a look. I do not actually think Wikipedia should compete with Facebook clickbait sites, however. A "biography" should be written with a neutral view as much as possible, though I fear at times I am in the minority! Collect (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick I suspect we give too many reviews of a book here - but perhaps there should actually be an article on it, if the book is important? Collect (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yusof Ishak

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Yusof Ishak. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White House Press Secretary

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White House Press Secretary. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ching Hai

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ching Hai. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neal D. Barnard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Neal D. Barnard. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Debbie Wasserman Schultz

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jared Taylor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jared Taylor. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Manny_Pacquiao

Was there some reason for you not informing anyone that you contributed to a report on the BLP noticeboard? That's a crappy way to deal with things, at least inform people, so we can give our opinions. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not create that section, nor does everyone who posts to a section on that board have obligations to tell others who presumably already know about the section that the section exists.

As for your snide attack, I suggest you avoid such in the future. Collect (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox scientist

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox scientist. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thomas Rhett

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Thomas Rhett. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

My personal attacks?

I'm sorry that you considered my SPI report to be a personal attack against Songisjust, without merit and not of interest to SPI clerks. Fortunately, SPI clerks didn't see it the same way and the above-mentioned sock account, was confirmed to be exactly that and indef blocked. [[1]]

Anyway, thanks for contributing towards the SPI report and have a great day. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you actually apologize for your attacks on me, however. Collect (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Once you state that you were wrong for criticizing my claims of sock puppetry against the account that has just been indef blocked for sock puppetry, I might start taking your comments a little more seriously. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Horsecrap. I fear you do0 not give a rat's ass about anything other than making sure that you implicitly claim that I back socks, that Hillbillyholiday, Mr Ernie, STSC, Mac Dreamstate and others somehow are wrong when they agree than an RfC is needed for any BLP questions.

So in short, apart from you and an indef blocked sock, no one on the BLP noticeboard thought there was any BLP issue, and from that we can come to the conclusion that there are zero BLP issues with that article and proceed with reverting it back to the stable previous version. does not seem remotely collegial at all, especially since I have named others who see problems. (bold text from SC420)

One the BLP noticeboard, let's list who raised concerns. Well, firstly you did seems to imply that I was the one who raised concerns. "A WP:BLP issue at this article has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Manny Pacquiao steroid allegations and consistent edit_warring. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)" (bold text from SC420)

I am not and have never been Malcolmx15 as far as I can tell. You appear to "think different" on how the OP would use two different names.

I trust you will posthaste redact the two blatant misstatements you made there.

You do name every single editor you had a dispute with :

Oh! You're right. Lots of editors have declined to support my edits on that article.

Such as - Safehorns (indef blocked sock) RetiredVet1946 (indef blocked sock) Ohio girl (indef blocked sock) User:172.56.14.2 (blocked IP) User:208.54.83.172 (blocked IP) - that's the reason for it quacking like a duck. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Funny thing is that there are a slew of editors who are not socks, have never been socks, and whose posts are clear, and think they somehow do not exist - that the only person who has an understanding of WP:BLP is yourself alone, and that you do not need to follow WP:BLP nor WP:CONSENSUS nor any other policy applicable. When all I did was tell you that you need to start an RfC!!! Is this sufficiently clear? Collect (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note The one editor who has sought to include BLP violations in the BLP has gotten support from an IP now, and had engaged, again, in edit war [2] despite being told repeatedly that an RfC is needed for such material. Will someone please apprise that editor of the problems and that possibly using an IP/sock may well be the least of his problems? Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Collect, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words. Cheers, ansh666 23:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Montgomery C. Meigs

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Montgomery C. Meigs. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.Collect (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David Ferrie

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Ferrie. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lee Rhiannon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lee Rhiannon. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jadwiga of Poland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jadwiga of Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gary the Goat

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gary the Goat. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sven Hassel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sven Hassel. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Woody Allen

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Woody Allen. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom

I reported your Mark Ames edit, which I believe violated your ban on editing "US political figures," here. CityOfSilver 21:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abram Petrovich Gannibal

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abram Petrovich Gannibal. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Steve Bannon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Steve Bannon. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Hello, Collect. This is about your questions to the arbcom candidates. So far you have repeated (with slight changes of wording) the exact same questions as in 2016 and in 2015 to all the candidates. The questions obviously refer to your own case in 2015, and it will be hard to understand the point of them for any candidate who does not have a detailed familiarity with that case. I think it's disruptive to keep repeating those grudge questions every year. The candidates have enough work to do replying to actually relevant questions, and readers trying to follow the election have enough to read, without attempting to take stock of increasingly (as your case recedes into history) pointless questions. Especially the first question, with no explanation or context, is completely pointless IMO. Please stop. Bishonen | talk 10:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC).

I note your concerns, and feel my questions do, in fact, reflect ongoing concerns. Collect (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You do. And I feel you're disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point and wasting everybody's time. Presumably it doesn't take very much time or effort for you yourself — just copypaste the questions over and over and don't trouble to respond when you do get replies, not even to a "thank you". (Or, I may have missed something — have you ever answered the responses? Do you return to read them..?) But for those candidates conscientious enough to try to deal with all questions, however ill-judged, it must be a bother they really don't need in mid-campaign. So, do you intend to keep on considering "Should the existence of a 'case' imply that the committee should inevitably impose 'sanctions'?" an ongoing concern in 2018, 2019, 2020..? I think some arb (or maybe someone else) may have made a thoughtless statement to the effect that it should imply that, during the course of your case; but what I don't understand is why it was such a big deal to you that you're not over it in 2017. Please reconsider. If you don't, I'm going to appeal to the coordinators. Bishonen | talk 17:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC).

I agree with Bishonen that it might be better to have some updating rather than asking the same questions each year, but in fairness to Collect, he uses the candidates' responses in preparing his annual voter guides (example), so he clearly does read them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I find those questions to be disruptive. That they serve Collect's purpose for his own voter guide is great but doesn't do much for the rest of the audience. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I just read the questions, and they are perfectly fine. How someone could consider them disruptive is quite the headscratcher. Arkon (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Note The questions have been asked several years in a row, and no one has given any valid reason for complaint. I use the questions as a basis for a voter guide, and if you wish to read the guide, you may, but I do not force anyone at all to read the guide. I would point out, in fact, that edits are made every year to the set of questions, so I fear I find the lynch mob mentality is disturbing. Nor do I feel that berating me on this talk page is a rational use of time for those concerned. Collect (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you have asked the questions several years in a row. That was part of my complaint. I've posted to the election coordinators here. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC).

Curiously enough, we do not have the same candidates each year. Finding out how different people answer is a great reason for consistency in questions. Or do you feel that every new candidate will cut-and-paste answers from prior candidates? By the way, organizations like LWV pride themselves on consistent questions, and a significant number of administrator candidates are asked the same questions that have been asked for years. Clear? Or is there another reason why you focus on me at this point? Collect (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You didn't say "Thank you", duh. Arkon (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The questions aren't particularly useful (I'm here out of curiosity as to why the editor asks them), but they're certainly not disruptive. Surely there are less trivial issues to concern yourselves with. Cjhard (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aydin Aghdashloo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aydin Aghdashloo. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blake Shelton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blake Shelton. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alex Jones (radio host). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Collect. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tim McGraw

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tim McGraw. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Popoff

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Popoff. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Collect (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Thank you - and to you from the freezing South :) Collect (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Josephine Butler

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Josephine Butler. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Slobodan Praljak

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Slobodan Praljak. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Billie Lourd

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Billie Lourd. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carolina Nairne

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carolina Nairne. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roy Moore

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roy Moore. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Princess Eugenie of York

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Princess Eugenie of York. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

David Ogden Stiers

Not surprisingly, Stiers gave his only coming-out interview to a gay website. Being a gay website should not render the interview unusable, particularly when the actual quoted source is ABC News, which is considered a very reputable source and has apparently verified that the interview and quote were real, since they published a story saying that the interview and quote were real and they are, as we have established, a very reputable source. And what is the one and only thing that makes a source reputable? The fact that they verify the information they publish.

To refuse to include the fact that an openly gay man who has publicly said that he wants to live openly as a gay man is, in fact, an openly gay man simply because he failed to make the announcement to a website that doesn't focus on stories about gay people is, frankly, ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.84.229 (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The "gay website" does not meet WP:RS. ABC in fact did not state the claim as fact. Stiers in other places has denied the claim. WP:BLP requires a strong basis for any categorization of a living person on sex and religion. Combined, Wikipedia has no choice under its policies. Collect (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dorothy Tarrant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dorothy Tarrant. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Coco Austin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Coco Austin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Noah Oppenheim

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Noah Oppenheim. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarify

Hi,

Would you mind clarifying your vote on Talk:Noah_Oppenheim#RfC_on_inclusion_of_Matt_Lauer_content?

It's clear you oppose the suggested content, an abbreviation of the extended paragraph about the incident in the article. From your description, it seems like you also oppose the even more extensive content about the incident on the live article. However, you didn't say this explicitly, so I could be wrong. It would he helpful if you could weigh in.

Many thanks,

Ed BC1278 (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Please comment on Talk:James R. Fouts

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James R. Fouts. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of Matt Lauer content

Hi,

You previously participated in the inclusion of Harvey Weinstein content in the Noah Oppenheim article. There is an RfC on another matter about Matt Lauer's firing, with a vote, and I am notifying everyone who participated on the Talk page recently.

Talk:Noah_Oppenheim#RfC_on_inclusion_of_Matt_Lauer_content

As I have disclosed before, I am a paid consultant to NBC News so am not voting on the matter.

Thanks,BC1278 (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Looking for a suggestion

Collect, I've got a question for you and I'm asking because I think this is an area where you don't edit so asking shouldn't be considered canvasing (I would ask that you not participate in what ever discussion comes up). If you want to read up on the dispute it's in my edit history. If you do I would ask that you not reply to the discussion since I'm looking for suggestions, not canvassing. So when you have a somewhat policy based question with just three editors and you would like to, neutrally, get more eyes on the article and/or find a forum to ask about the policies in question, where do you suggest going? Springee (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I fear you need to simply produce appropriate RfCs on problematic material in any article whatsoever on Wikipedia, and note their existence on active noticeboards. The big clear BLP violation was backed away from, at least. The appropriate policies for any organization article always include WP:NPOV and its noticeboard WP:NPOV/N. That noticeboard is clearly relevant for a wide range of articles, and would not reasonably be considered "canvassing". Sorry I can not really go into details. Collect (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Change on Noah Oppenheim article

Hi Collect,

I noticed you added a sentence about the Harvey Weinstein story on the Noah Oppenheim article. As you know, there was an RfC on whether to include the Weinstein matter in this article here: Talk:Noah_Oppenheim#RfC_on_decision_to_let_Weinstein_story_go

The vote expires in about 2 or 3 days (a full month), and so far, it is against the inclusion of this matter on the article because of COATRACK.

If you disagree and wish to make a change, can you open a discussion inside the Talk page RfC. In the meantime, I'd ask that you please abide by the process and remove this language until the discussion is complete.

Thank you,

EdBC1278 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Please comment on Talk:Alina Zagitova

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alina Zagitova. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Threading

Hey there, re: this edit of mine, I didn't know where to put it, because I couldn't really tell which comment you were responding to, from lack of indentation. Anyway, I was responding to ContentEditman, if it wasn't obvious. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Your position is certainly clear, and I do not worry about colons and indents on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jorge I. Domínguez

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jorge I. Domínguez. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for youe helpful comment on this RfC. Can you point to a couple of Wikipedia articles where allegations of criminal behavior are handled properly? HouseOfChange (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jessica Chastain

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jessica Chastain. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Request on Talk page

Hi Collect,

I just left this request on the Talk page of Noah Oppenheim, but I thought I'd repeat it here since that Talk page is now flooded:

Collect Since you made an edit that includes the denial of knowledge of complaints, if this is to be included, I'd request that for that part of the sentence, it hue more closely to the statement from NBC, since it's not precisely the same as what is written in Wikipedia: the exact statement from NBC, as quoted in the NY Times source says: "...prior to Monday night [November 27], current NBC News management was never made aware of any complaints about Matt Lauer’s conduct." This is narrower than what the language in Wikipedia now says.

Thanks! BC1278 (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)BC1278

@Collect: Sorry to bug you on this, but the current language here overstates the NBC News position. NBC News has only said current NBC management was not made aware of complaints against Lauer. It didn't make a blanket denial as to what other managers during Lauer's 20+ years at NBC may or may not have known. And it just addresses complaints against Lauer at NBC, not, for example, old rumors from supermarket tabloids. I happen to think a criticism section is COATRACK as it specifically relates to Oppenheim, but as long as it's in the article, it should be accurate. Here's a slight rewording:

• The NBC News organization was criticized when news broke of the sexual harassment claims against Matt Lauer in November 2017; current management denied knowledge of complaints about Lauer's conduct prior to a complaint on November 27, 2017.

Instead of:

• The NBC News organization was criticized when news broke of the sexual harassment claims against Matt Lauer; it denied knowledge of any such actions by Lauer prior to the report made at the end of November 2017.

I posted a similar note on the Talk section, but as you're the editor who did re-phrasing of the sentences, you'd seem the logical candidate to correct this slight issue. The New York Times citation for the existing sentence would be the same for the new passage. BC1278 (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Yes. It is quite likely that someone knew something had occurred. Saying "no one knew anything at all" is saying something no source has claimed. When faced with an unsupported statement, or one which is valid either way, the looser wording is logical. Collect (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mikhail Bulgakov

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mikhail Bulgakov. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doug Ford Jr.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doug Ford Jr.. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Washington

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Washington. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abiy Ahmed Ali

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abiy Ahmed Ali. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Thiel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Thiel. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John R. Bolton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John R. Bolton. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeff Novitzky

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeff Novitzky. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

List of YouTubers

There is another deletion discussion on List of YouTubers. If you would like to weigh in, you can do so by checking out the discussion here. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Unstrike

I opposed the RFA, but you would be within your rights and reasonable expectations to unstrike the oppose you made. Andrevan@ 17:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I can not morally unstrike - I gave in to the demands that appear now to be allowed in RfAs. And was specifically called "irrational" for saying that my reasons were well sufficient to justify my vote. Thank you, though. Collect (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you take whatever discussion or questioning your comment was met with, with a grain of salt. Opposition for deletionism is a valid basis and has long taken place at RFAs. Andrevan@ 20:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

And the folks who do not accept a valid reason to oppose and who then make personal attacks have won. They are likely smiling at their victory, which I hope will be Pyrrhic. I recall one case where the person I opposed was then removed only a few months later. Collect (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

BLPN

Hi Collect, As you commented on the last BLPN just letting you know the article's back at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Kirsty_Gallacher for the exact same reason as before, Just thought I should let you know, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Noted. TY. Collect (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nextdoor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nextdoor. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking for an outside POV

Collect, I'm looking for an uninvolved opinion. This is about what I perceive as possible campaigning by an editor whom I think is generally working in good faith. Thus if I'm correct then I think any violation is unintentional. A new firearms related project page, WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics, was created in the last month or so. Most of the current participants have a common POV with respect to what material should/shouldn't be included in gun related articles. The same editor was involved with a discussion at the M1911 pistol page [[3]]. That discussion was then listed as an open discussion on the project page[[4]]. This caused me a bit of concern. First, at the time the M1911 article was tagged as one the Gun Politics project was interested in. Second, the projects that were already associated with the topic were not notified. So at this point it raises the question why only one project was notified, not all associated projects. That alone wouldn't rise to what I view as canvasing. However, having participated in a number of recent firearms related RfCs, the editors in question have very similar views on what should and shouldn't be in firearms related articles. Thus we have what would appear to be a selective notification of sympathetic editors. I asked about this potential issue here [[5]]. So here are my questions for you. One, do you think my concern is unfounded? Two, if I wanted to raise this potential issue, where in the wide world of wikipedia would one ask such a question? Again, I don't think this was done with bad faith intent but when the Gun Politics project was created I was worried that it could end up being a way to coordinate a few editors with a common opinion across a number of articles. Ironically the Project Firearms editors have been accused of exactly the same thing. Springee (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Not campaigning. According to WP:APPNOTE notifying a single Wikiproject is within policy. And the notice is worded neutrally. And a Wikiproject can tag any article which interests them. That said, if you think the WikiProject is in practice is a "Partisan" audience per the table at Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification you have two recourses per Wikipedia:Canvassing#How_to_respond_to_canvassing: (1) request that the user(s) responsible responsible stop, using Uw-canvass, then (2) report to ANI. And I would add (3) post a corresponding notice at WP:FIREARMS.– Lionel^(talk) 05:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia communities

I just read your [[6]] essay and feel that the "communities" aspect rings true for firearms-related articles. Many of the discussions in this area involve the same half-dozen or so editors repeatedly bringing up the same points with little hope for consensus. I can go into greater detail if you're interested. Do you have any ideas for getting more editors involved in this area without running endless RfCs? –dlthewave ☎ 18:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Gosh I wish there were an answer! You pretty much need to tailor the RfC to the WP noticeboard you are using - the noticeboards are imperfect, but give you a shot at hearing new voices. WP:NPOVN is the least used, but often the issue is spot on "neutral point of view". WP:BLPN sticks to what belongs and does not belong in an article mentioning a living person, not just biographies. WP:RSN is good for vetting sources - making sure that opinion sources are cited as such, and not used to make factual claims. All other boards are more drama than decision. "Getting other editors involved" is difficult if WP:CANVASS becomes an issue, of course. Hope this helps.Collect (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Andrew Scheer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andrew Scheer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dana Loesch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dana Loesch. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Junípero Serra

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Junípero Serra. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

MKuCR

user appears more desirous of name-calling than much else
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Collect, I have noticed you added this text [7]. Although it is properly sources, its neutrality is disputed by several reliable sources. In addition, this text is not supported by a talk page consensus. Since this text is relevant to the article's subject, you may move it to the article's body, where it will be placed to a proper context. Keeping in mind tha the article is under 1RR, I respectfully request you to self revert and move the text to the article's body by yourself. Please, keep in mind that (i) the text you added is not a consensus version, and (ii) you added a strongly non-neutral statement, and if you were not aware of that, I am informing you about that now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC) I added no text at all. I simply reverted your edit. Any text was therefore there at the time you made your edit. Collect (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC) You restored the text removed by me. Users who add or restore some text are supposed to justify their actions. Your justification cites a wrong reason.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	We care about conscientious editors like you. Thanks for all your work (e.g. on Charles Mattocks)! JustBerry (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Collect: Shutting off Mac's autocorrect! --JustBerry (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Spillchuckers are notorious indeed! Collect (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alex Jones

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alex Jones. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

MKuCR

user appears interesting in attacking me personally and name-calling than in solving issues at all
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. You are repeatedly adding the text that violates WP:NPOV without properly explaining this addition on the talk page (see the talk page discussion), citing a wrong reason (a consensus has been achieved that a long standing version of this article does not reflect any consensus, as the results of the discussion on the talk page demonstrate). Please, self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC) You appear to have started an RfC thereon - pending an RfC, the status quo ante remains. The current lead achieved consensus again very recently, in fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC) That works only if the current text is not violating our policy. Since I demonstrated it does, and you failed to prove the opposite, it should be removed. A responsibility for the attempts to restore a content that violates our policy is on you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC) In fact, none of threads started by Paul on this article talk page or RSNB received consensus in his favor. Which is not surprising. My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Citing an old discussions and ignoring more recent opinia and arguments is hardly productive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Old discussions are relevant if there was nothing new (there was no new RS on the subject, etc.) You are trying to say "last word" in every discussion when others are already tired and provided their arguments. That does not make you right, and it does not make consensus in your favor. Start a proper RfC, have it closed by admins, and then you will be right. My very best wishes (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Old and inconclusive discussions are not relevant when new arguments are presented and new users are involved. By the way, taking into account this, Collect is definitely acting both against the policy and consensus: we have 6 vs 2 plus one neutral opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC) The new discussion you started has been automatically archived in this state. Did you get support? No. As about thread you started on article talk page [8], that was simply waste of time. Everyone agree that WP:Consensus is required, "every version is wrong version", the "consensus can change", and admins did not endorse any version. There is no way to interpret any possible outcome of this discussion as anything binding for any contributor. My very best wishes (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:H.J. Whitley

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:H.J. Whitley. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)