User talk:Collect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Million award logo.svgThis user won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Christian Science to Good Article status.

Well-meaning editors: Do not edit comments from others on this page. Thank you.

I have now reached the 244 "Thanks" level from "notifications" - getting an average of over 115 per year it appears. Thank you to all who have thought highly of my edits. Collect (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

From 2013 (and various unnamed editors): I have started to work on a composite of my history dealing with Collect at my talk page. It starts in late 2008 so it might take a while. I'll accept fellow editors deciding when they have more of the facts.

Had I known Collect was behind your request I may have declined. He has been sniffing my excrement for 4 years or more. I don't bother myself with him unless he shows up where I am working. Then I have to consider what is more important: dealing with Collect's dribble or continuing to talk and work with other editors. I detest him so much I usually just leave and go do something else in WikiLand
Sorry, But I'd rather have all of my fingernails pulled out than to get involved with those editors. Especially Collect, perhaps the most dangerous and dirtiest Wikipedia editor I've come across--only my opinion of course, which I feel I am free to offer on my own talk page? It is true that there are plenty of articles here that are more about numbers than about the truth, IOW, who ever has the most editors on their side can write the article.
I got here by looking at Collect contrbutions. (from a sock master)
This essay serves no purpose in mainspace other than to aggrandize its creator. I recall some quip about dressing a pig...I'll let those who want, finish the line.

Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense

Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group.

Quote of the day from an editor who seems to regard his own screeds as the epitome of "wit":

Twain is the perennial favorite of intellectual pygmies who believe a trite quote has the power to increase their stature.

I rather think his "wit" speaks for itself pretty clearly.

Some of my essays:

WP:False consensus


WP:Advocacy articles


WP:Defend to the Death


WP:Baby and Bathwater



WP:Sex, Religion and Politics

WP:Editorially involved

WP:Mutual admiration society

WP:Source pH


WP:Variable RS

WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights

WP:Repetition in Argumentation

WP:The task of an editor



Some of the articles I have created:

  1. Samuel Arnold Greeley
  2. Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography
  3. Harlan Howard Thompson
  4. Charles S. Strong (recommended)
  5. John W. Curry
  6. Gordon Grant (artist)
  7. Éditions Gründ
  8. Tech Engineering News
  9. Boston Society of Civil Engineers
  10. Frank P. Brown Medal
  11. Thaddeus Seymour
  12. Christopher Burnham


From WP:Plagiarism[edit]

☒N Copying from an unacknowledged source

  • Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or closely paraphrased with very few changes—from a source that is not acknowledged anywhere in the article, either in the body of the article, or in footnotes, the references section, or the external links section.
  • The above example is the most egregious form of plagiarism and the least likely to be accidental.

repeating for those who did not seem to read it the first time:[edit]

Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group.

Poring over 40K+ edits ....[edit]

On over 98% of articles where I have asserted BLP problems - there was no contest about it.

  1. Sarah Palin is not a practitioner of Witchcraft,
  2. Joe the Plumber is not a felon,
  3. Prescott Bush was not a manager of Nazi slave labour camps whose living heirs live off of Nazi gold,
  4. Johan Hari is not a worst journalist ever to live,
  5. XXX is not "gay",
  6. YYY (living person) is not "homophobia",
  7. ZZZ (many) are not "Jews", etc.

as well as many hundreds of other articles, such as ones asserting groups of living persons support use of biological weapons to commit genocide, etc. Of those where an issue was raised and discussed, in about 80% of the cases it was determined that there was a BLP violation and my position was correct. My "poor BLP average" is 99+% in my favour. As for being biased on "US politics" issues, no evidence has been provided for that claim for one very good reason - I am not biased on US politics issues, and have edited articles on everyone from Communists to Fascists worldwide.

Clearly some editors have spent a great deal of time following my every edit, but did anyone note that it is the same editors each time?

I have now spent several full days on the preliminary stuff -- but so far not a single arbitrator has acknowledged the evidence I sent in months ago. Where no one reads anything, it is likely they will read anything in the future - or is it a matter of "our minds are made up ahead of time - don't bother us with facts"? ANEW complaints? In one case: My conclusion is thus that this is not a blockable offense, and Collect apparently acted in good faith, In another "both editors blocked" despite the fact the 3+RR was not on my part at all, and the BLP issue was later proven at AfD to be correctly raised, [1] notes that repeatedly removing fucking from a BLP where the problem had already been shown to be a BLP issue was not improper on my part, and so on. Collect (talk)

for lurkers:[edit]

Cinderella was a notorious crier - tears by the gallon.

Thus becoming the very first Grimm weaper.

On this day[edit]

As we hear Taps or The Last Post on this day, we should remember they descended from the same source - a call to innkeepers to "close the taps" so soldiers could return to their posts (taptoe in Dutch). What one does not hear though is Winston Churchill's comment about retirement and death:

I leave when the pub closes

When taptoe has sounded the last time, and the "last post" has been visited.

De mortuis nil nisi bonum[edit]

any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee John Donne

Quotation of the day. 9 February 2016

Star Wars marketing run amok[edit]

ecigs at Darth Vaper

major stores at Darth Maul

Dating service at Luke Shywalker

Tanning salon at Obi Wan Kenobi

So far no suggestions for the female characters ...

ArbCom Election Guide 2017[edit]

See User:Collect/ACE2017

Highly recommended candidates are Premeditated Chaos, The Rambling Man, SMcCandlish and BU Rob13.

The recommendations are based on answers to my questions only, and nothing else.

diffs easily verified by anyone looking at the MKUCR history[edit]

04:19 to 04:24 4 June three edits including changes to recent edits (reverts) after five edits by others.

16:03 to 18:29 3 June seven edits including changes to recent edits (reverts) after thirteen edits by others

03:01 to 05:57 3 June seven edits with two intervening edits by another, after three edits by others including clear reverts.

17 edits in roughly one day. And with at least three reverts by any count (even counting multiple reverts as a single revert).

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(cur | prev) 04:24, 4 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (109,924 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎Terminology: ups) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 04:23, 4 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (109,922 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (→‎Terminology) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 04:19, 4 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (109,900 bytes) (+277)‎ . . (→‎Terminology: Added a source per My Very Best Wishes) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 22:44, 3 June 2018‎ AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)‎ . . (109,623 bytes) (+1,791)‎ . . (Rescuing orphaned refs ("Aronson" from rev 844275840)) (undo) (cur | prev) 22:19, 3 June 2018‎ My very best wishes (talk | contribs)‎ . . (107,832 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (→‎Estimates) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 22:16, 3 June 2018‎ My very best wishes (talk | contribs)‎ . . (107,833 bytes) (-3,329)‎ . . (→‎Estimates: rephrase: this can be summarized much shorter) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 21:36, 3 June 2018‎ Aquillion (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (111,162 bytes) (+9)‎ . . (partial restore of some minor edits no one has specifically objected to on talk. I presume nobody has a strong feeling that we must not link Barbara Harff, or that the typo of "byStéphane" is essential to the article.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 18:43, 3 June 2018‎ Smallbones (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,153 bytes) (-2,185)‎ . . (revert to last 6+7=13, verbose and opinionated) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 18:29, 3 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (113,338 bytes) (+18)‎ . . (→‎Estimates) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 18:25, 3 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (113,320 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Estimates) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 18:15, 3 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (113,319 bytes) (+1,390)‎ . . (→‎Estimates: More about famine deaths. Sources added.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 17:10, 3 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,929 bytes) (+210)‎ . . (→‎Estimates: Do not understand why hyperlink was removed. Added an explanation of why Rummel's approach leads to inflation of figures) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 16:42, 3 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,719 bytes) (+427)‎ . . (→‎Terminology: More strict definition of democide is provided, cited from the article authored by a close Rummel's colleague and renown genocide scholar.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 16:34, 3 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (111,292 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (→‎Estimates) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 16:03, 3 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,288 bytes) (+135)‎ . . (→‎Estimates: Expanded Dallin's opinion) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:50, 3 June 2018‎ 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (111,153 bytes) (+15)‎ . . (imprisonment -- that's what a Gulag is.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:27, 3 June 2018‎ My very best wishes (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,138 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (should be fixed I think - see talk; of course all these estimates were highly approximate and debatable) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:49, 3 June 2018‎ (talk)‎ . . (111,165 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (→‎Political system and ideology) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:34, 3 June 2018‎ C.J. Griffin (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (111,161 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (→‎Estimates: removing space) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:23, 3 June 2018‎ Collect (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,162 bytes) (-236)‎ . . (→‎Estimates: reduce argumentation and "however" WTA) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:19, 3 June 2018‎ Collect (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,398 bytes) (-299)‎ . . (→‎Estimates: declaration of "importance" is made in Wikipedia's voice and would need a source and ascription as opinion) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:24, 3 June 2018‎ Fifelfoo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,697 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (more citation fiddle (citation / bibliography)) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit: Switched) (cur | prev) 09:13, 3 June 2018‎ Fifelfoo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,706 bytes) (+116)‎ . . (standardise to [p]p. ##[figuredash ## | , ##][. | , | :] with lowercase for alpha pages. s.=>§. See also: and See: in citations to plain citations.
=> ; in list citations. Similar such citation changes of no content change to article.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 08:58, 3 June 2018‎ Fifelfoo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,590 bytes) (+23)‎ . . (standardise to [p]p. ##[figuredash ##) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 08:37, 3 June 2018‎ Fifelfoo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,567 bytes) (+580)‎ . . (→‎Bibliography: first three brought into style, figure dashes) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 06:16, 3 June 2018‎ Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (110,987 bytes) (-334)‎ . . (→‎People's Republic of China: trimming. We do not need separate sections for every paragraph. Also copyediting. "Subject to control at various times" is hardly enough to include here.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 06:06, 3 June 2018‎ Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,321 bytes) (-56)‎ . . (An outrageous claim with no source. The image itself is dodgy, but with a plain caption may be okay.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 06:01, 3 June 2018‎ Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,377 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (→‎Terminology: ce) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 05:57, 3 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,372 bytes) (+651)‎ . . (→‎Estimates: Added more sources and the reference to famine) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 05:30, 3 June 2018‎ Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (110,721 bytes) (-1,234)‎ . . (→‎Legal prosecution for genocide and genocide denial: too much detail. We haven't, and shouldn't, provide background info on any of the other incidents. That Stalin was declared responsible is enough.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 05:26, 3 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (111,955 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (→‎Estimates) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 05:24, 3 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (111,952 bytes) (+9)‎ . . (→‎Estimates) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 05:23, 3 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,943 bytes) (-58)‎ . . (→‎Estimates: repetition) (undo | thank)(cur | prev) 05:12, 3 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (112,001 bytes) (+774)‎ . . (→‎Estimates: More on Rummel and genocide scholars) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 04:58, 3 June 2018‎ Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,227 bytes) (-130)‎ . . (→‎Debate on famines: ce, unnecessary weasel word, format) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 04:06, 3 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,357 bytes) (+888)‎ . . (→‎Estimates: Criticism of Rummel added) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 03:01, 3 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (110,469 bytes) (+4,184)‎ . . (→‎Estimates: Added explanations about controversy per talk. Will add more.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 02:45, 3 June 2018‎ Holdoffhunger (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,285 bytes) (-5)‎ . . (Remove double "the.") (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 01:46, 3 June 2018‎ UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,290 bytes) (+86)‎ . . (→‎Debate on famines: Changing for clarity (previous phrasing made it seem like Churchill may have presided over both events listed. Also rewriting and expanding intro sentence to avoid synth/OR (source does not indicate that famine should not be viewed as state killings, rather that communists were not alone in causing famine.)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 01:07, 3 June 2018‎ UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,204 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Estimates: Simplifying numbers, listing thousands of thousands is confusing, this is more in line with formatting of other figures in same section) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 00:03, 3 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,204 bytes) (+2,316)‎ . . (→‎Estimates: Added modern data for deaths estimates in Cambodia and Stalin's USSR. Will add other data later.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 22:12, 2 June 2018‎ C.J. Griffin (talk | contribs)‎ . . (103,888 bytes) (+1,115)‎ . . (→‎Debate on famines: Adding dissenting scholars on this debate) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 20:15, 2 June 2018‎ Paul Siebert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (102,773 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (→‎Terminology: Actually, most authors cited here do not apply their terminology to all MKuCR. For example, Valentino does not include Afghanistan in his definition. Wheatcroft discusses only Stalinist repressions. Such a generalisation is an original research.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 19:55, 2 June 2018‎ AmateurEditor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (102,759 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (→‎Estimates: added years of publication to encourage maintenance of chronological order going forward) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 04:12, 2 June 2018‎ Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (102,737 bytes) (+48)‎ . . (Undid revision 844013188 by Collect (talk) Seriously, Collect? A quick google search found a bunch of sources using that exact phrase, not to mention the critics already on the talk page.) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)

Thank you[edit]

...for your kind words. I have a lot of respect for you and all your contributions. If you have any other advice to give me, please feel free. Words of wisdom? I'll take those too. Best Regards, Barbara 01:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom proposal[edit]

No persons or persons other than those specifically authorized by the Arbitration Committee, as a whole, shall endeavor to take any contacts with employers of, or anyone in a position to affect the employment of, any Wikipedia editor. Any such contact shall require a full and open on-Wiki discussion reaching a consensus on such contact. Any person who contacts any employer or representative without approaching the Arbitration Committee or seeking a valid consensus for such contact, shall be immediately banned from Wikipedia, and such ban shall be logged with the WMF.

is my proposal at an ArbCom case which will be declined, though I feel this suggestion would prevent future such problems. Comments here welcomed. Collect (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Wang Zheng (pilot) deletion undone by user Melcous[edit]

I see that user Melcous has undone your deletion of the “Controversies” or “Lawsuits” section at 17:14, 30 March. I hope you can ”restore” the deletion and eliminate the entire section as the proper response to the BLP material added to the article as the "Lawsuits" section. Wang Zheng's WP article focuses on a great aviation achievement that is becoming more widely recognized and appreciated each year. WP should not permit itself to be used by one individual to perpetuate her personal grievances on the subject's page by maliciously forcing the inclusion of contentious, defamatory claims that will inevitable impact the subject's professional reputation and livelihood.

As you point out in the edit summary, Melcous has matched the content of one footnote to her rewritten text, but the whole “lawsuit” section still violates a slew of specific BLP rules.

Before I address the BLP issues, let me point out that Melcous’ rewritten first paragraph of the section discussing Chen Wei and the one million yuan prize is completely irrelevant to the article. Why?

At the second paragraph of the “Flying” section, the article reports that on November 1, 2016, at Airshow China 2016 in Zhuhai, after the bona fides of the flight were vetted and approved by representatives of AOPA China, AOPA China's President Zhang Feng and Chen Wei together presented Wang with a replica bank draft for 1,000,000 yuan Renminbi (about $150,000)[18] representing the 1,000,000 yuan cash prize to the first Chinese woman to complete an around the world flight.

That was nearly two and one-half years ago. Saki Chen apparently doesn’t agree with AOPA China and Chen Wei that the title and prize should have gone to Julie but what of it? AOPA China determined that she lost. The Chen lawsuit being described in the article is not against AOPA China and Chen Wei to overturn their decision that Wang Zheng was first, so why should Chen’s scurrilous accusation that she “claimed” to have completed the flight first – no other source makes this claim – pollute Wang Zheng’s page? Contrary to Melcous’ conclusory protestation that Chen’s competing claim is noteworthy, it is not (except perhaps for exposing Chen as a monumental sore loser) nor is it relevant since it is easily empirically discredited. Anyone can easily find Saki Chen’s self –reported flight completion date 9/27/16 on the Internet, eight days after Wang Zheng.

Looking at the larger picture, this “Lawsuits” section unnecessarily poses the likelihood of irreparable harm to Wang's professional career as an airline pilot in violation of many of WP’s BLP rules, which I have reviewed carefully. According to WP policy:

BLP matter requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies. With all respect to Melcous, she has ignored the level of sensitivity WP demands when dealing with the biographies of living persons, i.e., she has not been sensitive to harming the subject at all.

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Melcous continues to use the lowest-quality Mainland China sources proffered by EdiK2016 -- who appears to be a paid hack for Saki Chen and who has not yet responded to Melcous' request for clarification of her relationship to Saki Chen -- a blog with 35 views where paid-for content is rampant and another blog in Chinese. Does Melcous read Chinese? Isn't it obvious that the Chinese sources are self-published or unverifiable and therefore disquaified from providing sourcing for a BLP article? Avoid misuse of primary sources such as court records, or other public documents; and perhaps most importantly here concerning people who are relatively unknown, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Not only does Melcous directly discuss court records but follows EdiK2016's cherrypicking of the docket selecting a single procedural motion that went against Wang Zheng solely to make her look bad by showing that she "lost" while ignoring that Wang Zheng won many more motions than this. There are over sixty events in the docket in that case but Melcous selects only one to include? Why? Does she have any idea how to report on a lawsuit? Really, what's the point of including what she has there about the Ninety-Nines lawsuit? Does it add anything to the understanding of Wang Zheng's record-setting accomplishment?

Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. To perpetuate Saki Chen's war against Wang Zheng -- to deliberately smear her and impugn her reputation -- is the sole reason EdiK2016 has showed up on WP.

Regarding people that are not public figures, material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures. Melcous is mistaken that material is not defamatory if it appears in another publication. In most of the United States, a libel will not be sanitized by a prior publication. Melcous appears without any knowledge of the law of defamation in the U.S. despite the basic guidance given in the BLP rules that addresses this legal concern.

I don’t challenge Melcous’ good faith in any of this but suggest that her analysis ignores the majority of the applicable BLP considerations. I hope that all this will persuade you that your initial instinct to eliminate the "lawsuit" section of the Wang Zheng article was and is correct and that you see fit to act accordingly to protect the subject from harm in accordance with WP's policies and intent.CTF99 (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Melcous responded to my last post to the BLB Noticeboard by stating that the mere fact of a lawsuit justifies it being reported under the law of unintended consequences. She obstinately refuses to apply the BLP rules in the spirit that they were adopted.CTF99 (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

TY - I dealt with the sourcing issue - as the fact that a lawsuit was made and settled seems a "statement of fact" and I tried my best for neutral wording lest anyone attach more significance than was due. If a source states precisely what the settlement entailed, that might make the section clearly removable, but we do not yet have that information. Collect (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Wang Zheng (pilot) again under attack[edit]

Collect, please have a look at the page now. It is under attack again. EdiK2016 is back edit warring, adding primary source extraneous material about lawsuit procedural motions citing the court docket in violation of BLP, and libelous unsourced comment from Chen Wei, again in violation of BLP. Let me be clear, the Chen Wei comment is a patent libel. EdiK2016 must be blocked and further access to the the page itself should be blocked -- with the challenged material/"Lawsuits" section temporarily removed until I can discuss with WP senior admin or executive level. Make no mistake, this is a personal war on the subject.CTF99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to jump in here and note that the page was already protected so that anonymous ips and new editors can't edit it. User:FlightTime is already taking care of EdiK2016's problematic edits. Please read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:KEEPCONCISE (although those are primarily referring to a different proccess). Bottom line,senior enough editors are on this, what you can do now is help find WP:RS to support the text and versions you want.Hydromania (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I was curious because the English version didn't match the Google Translate version, so I thought the Google and not the OR version should be the one we use. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


If you want to make your case, then make your case on the article's talk page, not at an unrelated noticeboard to skew the opinion of the people that will end up on the talk page, both per WP:CANVASSING and per WP:FORUMSHOPPING. The issue is not whether or not these sources are reliable, it's the interpretation of these sources that's at play. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of WP:RSN is quite specifically not a violation of WP:CANVASS by a few miles, and I suggest you play games elsewhere now. Collect (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Pell[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Pell. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Scarlett Johansson[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scarlett Johansson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Huff post...[edit]

Wnt pinged me (and yourself) recently on an AN thread about a HuPo article, for the life of me I have read his comments three times now and I have no idea what the point was. I started a new job last month so my activity approaches zero. Do I need to take an interest or can I safely ignore it? I gather its something to do with paid editing? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It is about HuffPo saying that we heed paid editors - and give us as "examples" of editors the "paid editor" has contacted. Frankly, Wnt is on a strange tangent because I never pay attention as to who posts on my page, nor what position they would want me to take. Collect (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Brian Wong page discussion[edit]

Thank you for your input. I gave a response after being away for a few days and hopefully answer your concerns in my response (not sure if Brian Wong publicly stating on his public Facebook page he is a public figure himself is sufficient evidence given the other info mentioned). If any more deficiencies or concerns, I will help to address it in a constructive manner as best that I can as this is my reputation as well since everything is getting scrutinized. I hope to deal in good faith and learn from the other members along the way. If there is nothing more to discuss or that of marginal benefits in further discussion, perhaps a vote could be started on an agreed upon resolution on the two main questions: If he is a public figure and if so, then how much info to include. 2001:569:7E43:7900:9D8E:7E55:DB61:3373 (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"Notability" makes him eligible for a BLP. "Public Figure" is a different term - and usually applies to celebrities and most political figures, etc. Collect (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. What I mean is that he self identified himself as a public figure. I believe if this combines with other info presented that he would be considered public figure. There is also a PR company which does his public image branding, getting him interviews and public appearances and a lot of the background work done is similar to celebrities. source: Celebrities and political figures is not inclusive of all. Wikipedia also lists social media personality and business leader into that category. This was his interview back in 2011 that Brian Wong announced his intention to become a public figure. "At UBC, Wong majored in Marketing, with a minor in Political Science. He says his decision to pursue business studies was influenced by his father, an accountant who started his own firm. “He showed me what was possible in this mysterious, elusive business space,” Wong says, “and it became very intriguing to me.” And as for his Political Science studies? “I always wanted to be a public figure, so I wanted to have that formal educational experience. And for four years of those classes,” he laughingly adds, “I sat across the room from some PoliSci students who really didn't like Commerce people and thought business was the root of all evil, so that provided me with a very interesting additional perspective.”" Source: (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Brian Wong page discussion 2[edit]

I gave you a response to your reply above. Not sure if you are able to see and then read edited updates or need new entry every time I reply to you. Just saw it yesterday. Best if reply is on the discussion page? 2001:569:7E43:7900:78A7:507E:51E2:E3D2 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC) Very sorry to person above. Not sure how I am able to start new entry and accidentally edited yours out. Tried to put it back. If possible, please roll back thhe person's entry.

Please comment on Talk:Danny Baker[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Danny Baker. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)