User talk:Collect/archive5

Undelete my user page?

Can you undelete my user page? I changed my mind and now I regret losing it.--2008Olympian^chitchat 05:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page seems to exist. Collect (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the page. The page which was there was simply one post accidentally placed there rather than talk. The userpage was, indeed, deleted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- IAMAA. Collect (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Happy to be of help. What does IAMAA stand for? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Not An Admin <g>. I was a "wizop" with a hundred sysops under me for some years, and would not really like to take on the thankless work of an admin here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought an N not an M then, for Not? Or was that a typo?

This place is a little odd to sysop/admin - your authority is nebulous, your responsibility varies according to your availability and enthusiasm, as well as demands on your time, and every freaking body is your boss. Its a little odd. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need a new keyboard (or mew keyboard if the cat sees it). I am very appreciative of what volunteers do for sure, and have a profound distrust of people who seek a title for the power it bestows <g>. Collect (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, a new keyboard wouldn't help me a bit; I tend to type messily, especially when I'm tired. The poor kittens aren't to blame either, sigh. Just my own bad typing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I read somewhere that you were a Star Trek fan? I date back to the "first letter-writing campaign" <g>. If you aren't, then I apologize. Collect (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Guilty. Not hard-core, though. I don't have ears or a communicator or anything. I only have the following series on DVD: ToS (partial) TNG, V. I like the beginning of DS9 but not the end. I have 6 of the movies - I waited in line to see the first one when it came out. Does that make me a "fan"? I was, however, too young to participate in the first letter writing campaign. Well, I could have, but I didn't know about such things then - and I would have had to block print. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hatashe/Faruk Khan

I am honestly asking for your input here. How would you have worded the concerns I had, so as not to appear, in your opinion, as being harsh? I am trying to improve myself. :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get accused of being too nice to newbies <g>. I probably would have said something on the order of "I see you are new here, would you like some help in finding out how to show a "neutral point of view" in an article? Some of your edits do not quite fit in to how Wikipedia works" or the like. Does this sound too mealy-mouthed? I do know that I find impersonal templates distasteful myself. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn't a template, except for pointing to WP:NPOV. OK. I'll try to be more mealy-mouthed. :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Enough. One more revert on Joe the Plumber, and you're going to be blocked for a week for long-term, persistent edit warring. After that block is up, any further reverts, we'll start at a month and go from there. Move on from that article. Tan | 39 03:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting attitude. I trust you gave the same warning to Mattnad? Collect (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I told myself you would go straight to the "did you give the other guy a warning too?" defense. My warning stands. No more reversions on the JtP article. Tan | 39 14:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me -- did you read my post as being a defense of some sort? Mea culpa. Mattnad continued reversions for seven hours after the warning, as far as I can tell <g>. And he tends to post a lot on this userpage. Collect (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe the former plumber :)

I must be a glutton for punishment but I have jumped in. Good luck and don't let the agenda pushers get to you! Unfortunately, articles like JTP and Palin and others are weak points of this project but still need to be attended to. Cheers! --Tom 15:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another harassing sock

See User talk:TheBossOfColect. I already reported them at WP:UAA. If it continues I'll request an underlying IP block at WP:RFCU. Do you have any suspicions or evidence as to who the sockmaster might be? Kelly ^hi! 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Joe the Plumber occupation-mania is reminding me of Traci Lords. Since she wasn't legal when she was doing porn, does that mean she wasn't really a porn actress? I'm sure she'll be glad to hear that. Kelly ^hi! 03:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well -- we already know John Glenn should not be astronaut in his infobox ... the game-playing by the other editors is astounding, and I am amazed KC is taken in by it as she is otherwise a smart puppy. Too bad we will never see any off-wiki communication implied by some of their usertalk posts about her. Collect (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

26 years

Well, I guess you have me by 10 or so (Archie, anyone?). You should know by now though that tit-or-tat sarcasm is extremely unlikely to yield anything constructive, so when you see the opportunity to do so, please do your part to keep the debate collegial. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any discomfort I may cause you. I am, however, a strong egalitarian, and I felt another's comment was far less so. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No discomfort on my part, except that dilutes the discussion and makes it harder for me to see if there's consensus or something close to it :-). My point is that if you have a concern about someone else's comment, it's unlikely that 2 wrongs will add up to a right, eh? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was a Wizop for a great many years with 100 "admins" under me at a time ... I commend you to look at User:Collect/actual summaries to see how one of the particpants acts <g>. He has since made a bunch more such "summaries." Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baby, It's Cold Outside would make an excellent soundtrack to this conversation. I'm not suggesting that you're randomly poking people, I'm just suggesting that you not poke back when poked. Dig? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As, for example, here. Let it go - do not continue the complaints and arguments. Johnny put it well when he suggested you "you not poke back when poked". The article is under probation; such actions are blockable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. He made a charge and I am not to respond to such. Collect (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, yeah. Otherwise the fight never ends. Ignore it. Or "rise above it". But don't keep it going. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of ironic you're getting this warning this week - Democrats are in a tizzy about Palin because she talked about campaign media bias in the Ziegler documentary. They are saying the same thing - she should just take anything that anyone says without responding. For the record, I don't think you said anything that was out of line or uncalled-for. For you to be getting warned seems like something of a double standard. Kelly ^hi! 15:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No irony at all. The article just went under probation - you did read the notice I linked, yes? And several other editors have been getting warnings as well, and I've been wholesale archiving on the talk page. Thanks for suggesting the probation - but now that its in effect, everyone needs to be pristine in their behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sincerely! The person who did the talk page "editing" gets less of a warning than the person who gives the diff to prove what he did <g>. One real funny bit came when I was told to "stay away" from JtP or be blocked -- and then the fact I stayed away was used as an argument against me <g>. Collect (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? What jtp? What argument? Difs please? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe the Plumber is another article where campaign fallout continues. Might be another candidate for probation if things don't ease back soon. The irony statement wasn't intended as a criticism, just an observation. Kelly ^hi! 16:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Oh, THAT article. Didn't twig when I saw Jtp - I'm not on that nor Barack Obama atm, I am happy to say. One nasty contentious political article at a time, or at most two, is my limit I think. And I have all the other stuff on my watchlist. But seriously, you cannot go wrong by always being the More Civil Party and following AGF. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tried that -- got yelled at for saying "thanks!" at the end of posts and was told civility was bad in that case <g>. 1600 admins - 1600 different styles, I suppose? Thanks! (oops!!!) Collect (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe

Added a comment, I'm not sure that the indents ended up right but I was trying to say inclusionist was wikilawyering, not you.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies for misunderstanding your position! I had read a lot of your comments in AfD (I tend to stick to MfD myself <g>) and was rather unsure about it. Inclusionist and I have a peculiar relationship -- he likes the fact I do not like deleting folk's userpages, but not that I am quite strict about what belongs in a BLP. Collect (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. My wikiphilosophy as i see it is a bit looser then average on fiction and a couple other areas, but on the strict side on blp inclusion.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Collect/thoughts for some of my extreme views <g> Collect (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like most of it. The Do no harm is why i feel differnt about blp's then other articles. If the article on the Millennium Falcon has too much detail, what does it matter compared to a real life person having misleading info in there biography.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would (were I king) extend BLP to all articles which deal with living persons as well. Collect (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anchorage Daily News dabbling in Trig Trutherism now

Not just for Andrew Sullivan anymore! Heh - it's pretty hilarious how Dougherty tries to shift the responsibility to the lunatics who e-mailed him. How far does the Anchorage Daily News have to drop into tabloid territory before it's not a reliable source anymore? Kelly ^hi! 22:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Teledildonix314

I don't know if you've been following the controversy with User:Teledildonix314 on the Rick Warren article over the past 2 weeks, but if not, you should know that he's a radical gay-rights activist (note his user name) who absolutely hates Warren and has repeatedly vandalized the article, so it's useless to argue with him - believe me, I've tried. I and other editors attempted to have him blocked by administrators, but he posted a lengthy apology/admission of guilt/attack on the discussion page, and he wasn't. I think the reason he posted it is because an administrator threatened to block him if he didn't or continued his behavior - which he has.

I've seen that you've already attempted to remove his banter on the Warren article a couple times, but all he'll do is continue to edit-war with you - he's unbelievable. Anyway, I've gone ahead and reported him again on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you and a couple other editors also report him, the administrators will take it more seriously and deal with him sooner. Anyway, keep an eye on the article. Thanks. Manutdglory (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to others: I did not regard this as "canvassing" as I had been active in the article and shared the concerns about an editor who made quite unusual talk page comments. Collect (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i'm concerned about the way i have been interacting with you, and i want to see how to avoid conflict and resolve our differences. In order to do this, i need to reasonably Assume Good Faith. Today you attacked my ability to do so, and as a part of what i believe is a larger pattern of antagonism, i have specifically directed an administrator's attention to this exchange between us. Virtual Steve has been a third-party observer, so i wrote in the following section on their TalkPage. Thank you for your consideration. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk~ _4-1-1 04:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VirtualSteve#Rick_Warren[reply]

Actually, i've decided i just don't want to be in conflict with you, so my solution is for me to just walk away for a while and cool off and think about more productive things. Next time i converse with you, i'll just try to start over at Square One with the whole AGF, bury the hatchet, and get on with learning how people interact in a more friendly fashion. Maybe i can't guarantee i'll be a Good Example, but at least i'll try not to be a Spectacular Warning. Thanks, good day. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk~ _4-1-1 09:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule warning

Please review WP:3RR. You may already have violated it on William Timmons; this is your official warning. Dicklyon (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:3RR removal of disputed material in a BLP is an exception. Also note the discussion on the article as well at the appropriate noticeboards. Thank! Collect (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

de mortuis nil nisi bonum?

Why did you quote that, what does that have to do with anything? travb (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Roman adage. "Speak no ill of the dead" is a rough equivalent. Collect (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that.

At Edward Moskal. If that is the only part of that amazingly convoluted article I broke in restructuring, I will faint from shock. All the best. :) sinneed (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you

RE: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia/FAQ

thank you so much collect. I notice you have become quite a fixture on the MfD circuit, saving many editor's contributions. In return for your kindess, I am going to stay away from Joe the Plumber from now on. Thanks again. travb (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh -- no need (give and take without rancor is ok -- it is the ones who show anger who upset me most). But heck -- tell you what, I will not deliberately disagree with you if you do the same? <g>. Collect (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

See this. Kelly ^hi! 17:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this. – ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both -- I have suspicions about this "character" as well. Collect (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way -- can we get a blanking or deletion of the sock's userpages? I think they may possibly qualify as "personal attack" to be sure. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD them - G10. Place {{db-attack}} on each page which you feel attacks you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I suspect few would argue that they do not attack me, to be sure. Collect (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the most horrific I've seen, but it was very clearly intended to be nothing but an attack on you. All gone now. WP:SPEEDY is good to peruse - a lot of the crap we get here is actually fairly easy to get rid of - the templates are in the box to the right, and correspond to the criteria in the policy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merci. I would have ignored it had he not chosen to go to my usertalk page <g> you would be amazed what I let roll off my shoulders her. Collect (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<- The discussion was moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheBossOfCollect. Kelly ^hi! 01:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Cagney

And, after months of only working on it in fits and starts, I've pretty well finished the James Cagney article. I've added the personal and political life sections which hopefully give a bit more insight into the man. I've also updated all the references to the standard wiki templates. I'd really appreciate your comments on it, and what you think might be needed to improve it further. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall take a look -- I haven't seen anything horrendous for sure <g>. Collect (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated your reference to the citation templates. If you have any more of the info to fill in on it (author, dates etc) i've left the blank fields in to add. Ta. --Ged UK (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merci. I fear I am not a great Knight Templater <g>. Collect (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, neither am I, but the new citation tool on the main toolbar is a real boon! --Ged UK (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:William Timmons, you will be blocked for vandalism. The comments you called irrelevant and personal were my comments to refute an ongoing claim by Rtally3 that he hadn't been blocked for sockpuppetry. Don't do that. Your disruptive behavior is getting close to blockable. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider attacks on who the editor is to be outside talk page guidelines. You appear to feel that it is a legitimate subject for a talk page. We appear to differ, but templating me for that difference is wrong IMHO. Thank! Collect (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ponzio's

Nice catch on that NYT article: I'm not sure how I missed it myself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to William Timmons, you will be blocked from editing. Collect, when you remove stuff under an edit summary that claims two new editors support you, when that is clearly not true, you are just being disruptive. One editor questioned one portion of what you removed (not the whole Iraq section); the other had an undue weight comment with respect to the details in the Lennon section. Nobody suggested removing the Iraq section. I've requested suggested changes from both of them. I'm trying to get all the input about what might be objected to, and so far there's not much, so settle down. I also filed a BLP/N item to seek more objections if there are any. So far, we don't see much problem. Just you and the WP:SPA guy User:Rtally3. Dicklyon (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, it's grossly inappropriate to leave vandalism warning templates with an experienced user over a content dispute. Please use dispute resolution instead. Kelly ^hi! 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the WP:DTTR essay. Sometimes, though, when an editor is being unreasonable, a warning with a little caution picture can help get their attention to the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you deliberately misstated fact in an edit summary, and conveniently forget the views of two new people who agreed that the material did not belong in the article at hand. In addition, threats do not make for collegial discussion as a rule. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll link what you're talking about, we can discuss it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your support at RS/N. Dicklyon (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are surely welcome! Collect (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi, Collect! Just wanted to let you know that I wasn't blowing you off on the William Timmons thing - it's just that it appears to be a complicated issue and I wanted to take the time to look at it in depth. I'm really unfamiliar with the situation and/or controversy. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 15:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! One ed just likes to use sources which mention Timmons in one line out of hundreds of pages <g> which does not actually impress me as doing homework on getting real cites. Heck, if one line is all I need, I could come up with several hundred interesting cites for Palin <g>. Collect (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be much happier to use sources that say more about him. What have you got? Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Union busting

I don't really know if you have any interest or strong views on unions or union busting, but I know you've put a lot of time into making and improving Wikipedia articles. While I know we don't always agree, I thought your input on this article could be helpful as some of the conversations and disagreements there are longstanding and, because there are only 3-4 regular editors, getting new opinions is hard. I've nominated the article for peer review, but if you have time or interest, I'd be grateful if you could take a look and see if you can help make the article better.

Rutherford B Hayes

Inre this deletion diff: The removed nicknames were ones I had sourced as being in common usage at the time of his presidency. Are we to only keep the ones that made the longest lasting impresion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some were only, as near as I could tell, used during the campaign -- there is no bright line on this stuff (sigh) The problem is setting a standard which does not have several hundred campaign slogans and editorial cartoonists names come into the list - I apologize if I took one out which really should be in there! Collect (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tsmollet

I've asked you a question at MFD.—Kww(talk) 13:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was not trying to violate any policy, I was simply trying to save an article for personal reference. Thanks for posting excellent points in the discussion. --Tsmollet (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A centralised discussion which may interest you

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity project on Wikipedia and the 2008 US elections

Hi Collect. I started a project on Wikiversity a few weeks ago but got distracted by other things for a while. The project, Wikipedia and the 2008 US elections, is a research project aimed at describing the process of creating good, NPOV articles about topics that tend to stir very strong points of view in those contributing to the articles. The 2008 elections seem a good subject for the study, since it was a very "hotly debated" topic for a long time, but unlike similarly long-disputed topics (such as the Middle East Conflict), it has a slightly more defined starting point and ending point (though of course many of the articles are still being intensely debated).

The Sarah Palin article is one of the first "beta" studies, so since you were involved with improving that article, I hoped you could help experiment with the Sarah Palin resource. I would also greatly appreciate any feedback or ideas you have about some starting questions about the project as a whole. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail Article

Can we please remove the 'Homosexuality' section on the Daily Mail article? I find it very offensive as it is clearly a left-wing attack on the paper. I feel that the section has no place on an encyclopedic article. 77.100.207.175 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have yanked it several times -- the article it mainly complains about was run in many other papers for sure! Collect (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THF

As I wrote on the Morton Brilliant Afd:

Please keep in mind that the nominator who Collect is arguing with was just booted for 3RR a violation.

The best thing you can do for an article that you want to keep is add the {{rescue}} tag below the AfD. Then members of the WP:ARS will swoop in and save it. Ikip (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Collect (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you userfied the article so you can work on it further? Instructions here User:Ikip/AfD, another editor who regualarly deletes helped me build this, I just keep getting suprised, but never as much as I have with you. Ikip (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism

I will take a look when I have a chance. I think it is a good idea of yours to draw in other editors. You may wish to be more systematic - the talk pages of our core content polcies have links to places where you can request editors fluent in those policies to comment on a content dispute. If you get really frustrated you can also file a Request for Comment. By the way I do not know what a cites<g> is. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merci -- and will you get me a new keyboard? <g>. Last three times I went searching for fresh eyes, I got accused of "forum shopping" by those who were dominating revisions. RfCs now are seldon efficaceous at all. I also am faced in Daily Mail with people who wish to claim the Tory paper is "fascist" <g>. (As an American, even I can recognize a Tory paper). Collect (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you and I have disagreed in the past so I think you are safe from "forum shopping" accusations - plus, at Wikipedia more is always merrier. But using those policy incident boards is one way to protect yourself from these accusations. Another way (which maybe you did) was just to go back trhough the article's history and solicit the views of anyone who was an active contributor. By the way your keyboard seems to work fine? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly enough -- honest disagreements do not bother me one whit. It is the ones whose disagreements are not based on honest discussion which get me upset. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You define "loose cannon"

At WP:ANI RE:

In short -- the unpardonable sin of not being an admin who has the power to save the history of an article is the problem. Ikip is actually trying to do what would appear to be "the right thing" here. Collect (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love that, it is so true. Just when I think I have you figured out Collect, you continue to suprise me. On joe the plumber--I thought I had you all figured out, then you start saving MfD and AfD articles. Then you assist me with one of my templates which are going to be deleted. Then you argue against PRESERVE, now you are sticking up for me at ANI. Your behavior is like a pendilum. Other than User:NuclearUmpf, I have never seen behavior like this. Keep constantly suprising me, in a good way! If there is a barnstar for this crazy behavior, tell me, and I will give you another barnstar. Ikip (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has it occurred to you that it is indeed I who is consistent? WP mainspace is not a place to push viewpoints, although a lot of editors do seem to try doing so (some of whom have COIs, it appears). Userspace, OTOH, is a place for people to be themselves -- as long as the pages do no harm to WP, and are not excessive in some manner. User templates, to me, are really part of how users define themselves, so I am loath to censor them. Thus that dichotomy. AfD nominations are another matter -- all too often they seem aimed at specific editors rather than at the subject of the article. I tend to think that the notability threshhold is misused far too often. Does this explain a few things? Collect (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly on wikipedia, editors are so partisan, biased, and piety in their attacks on editors with different viewpoints, that you consistent position on wikipedia is not only unusal, it is inconsistent with the way editors are here. Ikip (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I have already added a: Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. If you do not stop, I will begin searching for editors on Joe the Plumber, and other pages you recklessly edit war on, to co-endorse a RfC against you. I have had it with your tedious edit warring, deleting so much well referenced text.

In preperation for the RfC, I will then systamtically dig through your entire edit history, as I have done with countless other admins before. 03:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Gosh -- an unsigned bleat? Collect (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]