User talk:Collect: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:50, 16 December 2008 editCollect (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →Bill White: cmt← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:24, 23 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,120 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Collect/Archive 39) (botTag: Manual revert
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=leave messages to me on this page, please=

			{{User QMAward\|Christian Science}}
	'''Welcome!'''
			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. ] (]) 15:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
	Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place <code>{{helpme}}</code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

			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.''
	== Seriously? ==
			:''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 Misplaced Pages 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''
	In what way is linking to an established reliable source "original research"? The citation is clear, absolutely regarding that Gas Pipeline section, and follows appropriately the prior text. --<span style="background:mistyrose">]</span><span style="background:tan;font-size:7pt">]</span><span style="background:wheat;font-size:6pt">]</span> 18:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	:The AP article said the bidding rules were slanted against the major global gas companies. It tdid not say this was an impediment to the gas pipeline. Your use saying it was a problem for the pipeline was OR by WP standards. I was going to insert the correct language - that the AP felt the contract was slanted "against the giant global companies which control the gas rights," but another editor pointed out that the article was not strictly relevant to the claims made for it. If you wish to claim that the global gas companies somehow were cheated in the bidding, then find a cite for that. If you feel they will win a contest about the bidding, find a cite for that. The AP article does neither. ] (]) 20:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

			'''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.'''
	== Jihadists... ==

	I was wondering what Sarah had gotten herself into this time! :) ] (]) 11:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
	:It is in the McCain campaign article -- hop in! ] (]) 11:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
	::Meh... we'll see. Politics really doesn't interest me that much. Some people do, though! ] (]) 12:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

	== Mark Twain ==

	Collect, I noticed you are a fan of Mark Twain. I am too. Here's a wonderful website that has quotes organized alphabetically by topic, and the site has other writings by Twain. Enjoy! ] (]) 15:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

			Quote of the day from an editor who ''seems'' to regard his own screeds as the epitome of "wit":
	:Thanks! See my user page <g> for why Twain has so many mots ascribed to himself. ] (]) 15:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
			:::''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:
	== JTP ==

			]

			]
	FYI, ]. I requested the talk page be semi protected which it was for a few days. But the anon has returned spouting more BLP nonsense. I've reverted his trolling a few times and when I've done so he has blamed you for it. I'm not sure what his deal is, but since he's blaming you for what I've done, I wanted to make you aware. ] (]) 08:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

			]
	:I strongly suspect he is a sock (sigh). In fact, I am about sure of it. ] (]) 11:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

			]
	==AfD==
	Please see: ]. ] (]) 15:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

			]
	== edit warring==

			]
	i put you up for review here: . my reason is that you repeatedly push for what you want in spite of others wishes. you think you are right and you seem unwilling to compromise. i tried to warn you about your excessive editing, but you said i was wrong. lets see what an outsider has to say. ] (]) 07:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

			]
	:Intersesting -- you repeatedly insert contentious material in a BLP and report someone who points this out? ] (]) 11:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

			]
	::your accusation that i violated 3rr in two places is factually wrong. please see the admin board and note your incorrect date. also, as i understand it, 3rr means dont make ''more'' than 3 edits in 24hrs. i made 3 on jtp and 2 on the other article. please explain how you think this violates 3rr. (and i understand that edit warring can be a violation even without making 4 edits. my 3 edits were not the same revert and i doubt anyone would consider it edit warring). thanks! ] (]) 07:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

			]
	:::Try dealing with the actual results. And I would suggest 15 edits in a month is not "editwarring" by a long shot! I have now editted well over 250 pages -- and I think you have not. Thabnks! And please feel free not to reply. ] (]) 11:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
	::::no need to be rude to one another. as for 250 pages, thats great, not sure what it has to do with the price of tea in china, but if youre really proud of it then more power to you. since you are such a prodigious editor i am surprised that you havent yet corrected your factually incorrect accusation against me. it is easily proveable that you had the wrong date here . ] (]) 21:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
	::::You corrected the errant date. I did not think it was of earthshattering importance as I had intended not to file any formal complaint about your editwarring and reversions. And try not to make personal comments about editors. I am thicker-skinned than many are. Thank you most kindly. ] (]) 21:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

			]
	== Joe the Plumber wikiquote ==

			]
	Let's straighten this out. Are there any rules barring having a Wikiquote link placed on a page? If not, the link should go. Opinion should not prevent the existence of a link.

			]
	Further, if you feel the WIkiquote article isn't neutral; please add more quotes to it. ] (]) 16:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

			]
	:First - the Wikiquote pages has nothing which is not already on the JtP page, which makes it rather useless. Second, the WQ page does not have any rationale for what is, or is not, an important quote. Third, the WQ page has an exchange, and the "quote" given does not fall into what most people consider "quotable." So we have a link to what is a strange use of WQ at best, which copies whayt is already on the main page. And I would like a template for WQ for pages which do not have what most people consider quotes -- which is something other people cite, attributing it to the quotee. Such as "The buck stops here" as a Truman quote. Or "I'd rather be in Philadelphia" for W. C. Fields. Alas, the closest one available is NPOV. ] (]) 21:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

			]
	::It's irrelevent what quote(s) are or aren't on the Wikiquote page. The Wikiquote page exists. People will not know about the existence of the page without the link on the main Misplaced Pages article. I have seen many Wikiquote pages that seem lopsided; having a link promotes more people adding to it.

			]
	2nd - the rationale for what it is, is ''what it is''. In other words, it is a page with quotations. Which is exactly what Wikiquote is.

			]
	3rd - Liking a template is not the same as having one. There is truly no valid common sense reason for the link not to be there. ] (]) 22:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
	:Alas the "quote" on wikiquote is neither notable, nor not found in the article in the first place. Nor is it anything anyone else has "quoted" which makes the existence of the WQ page a puzzle. Sort of like having a link from a page of a transcript to the same material from the same transcript on a WQ page. ] (]) 22:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
	::Instead of us quabbling, then, let's use our resources and both add some quotes. Agreeable? ] (]) 00:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
	:::Sure -- but let's try to avoid transcripts in favor of finding stuff which is quotable stuff -- WQ is not the place for transcripts, but the place to find interesting quotes. K? ] (]) 01:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

			]
	== Bill White ==

			]
	You left a null edit about needing sources, but it seemed to concern a section that was fully sourced. Could you leave a {fact} tag or post something on the talk page? ]] ] 06:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
	:Another person edited between my two attempted consecutive edits -- the "Questions" section was not reffed, and was likely not to have a ref. Thanks! ] (]) 13:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
	::That's the problematic material from the IP that was mentioned at BLPN. He keeps returning to add it. ]] ] 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
	::So I notice <g>. ] (]) 16:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

			]
	== JtP ==

			]
	I'll be nice about this, but we have well sourced information that Joe was not working legally as plumber. You don't seem to like that, but unless you feel that newsweek, the toledo blade, and MSNBC are all wrong (and you're somehow more knowledgeable than they are), please stop reverting this. Hardly good faith.] (]) 18:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

			Some of the articles I have created:

			# ]
	First -- the police have had lots of opportunuity to arrest him. They haven't. '''There is no reason to believe the Ohio law on contractors is invalid.''' Second, the ref to the Ohio law includes "secondary" refs, which means the removal of that was improper. Third, addition of clearly contentious material falls under WP:BLP guidelines as removable. As for calling good faith edits "vandalism" - that is quite contrary to WP guidelines. Thankl you most kindly. ] (]) 18:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
			# ]
	:Collect, you are not as stupid as you're now pretending to be. There are many laws. One one can break them without being subject to arrest. The problem with that law citation is your misinterpretation that's it's relevant in this instance. Local officials, according the reliable sources you deleted, say otherwise. Please, stick to the topics.] (]) 19:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
			# ]
			# ] (recommended)
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]

			etc.
	::No civil actions taken. No administrative actions taken. No sign of any actions of any kind whatsoever. Seems clear to me that no one else considers JtPs acts as a plumber under the Newell license to be "illegal." As for personal attacks, thank you most kindly. ] (]) 19:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

			__TOC__
	:::Actually, there was civil action. Per the nesweeek article you deleted "On Friday, those officials said a letter was being mailed to Wurzelbacher’s employer warning him to get into compliance with city codes or face the loss of the company’s license." Care to revise your position? ] (]) 19:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	::::And the full content of the letter? Seems to me you are quite jumping the gun on calling any actions "illegal." And the Newell state contractors license can not be revoked by the city - and it is the state license under which the contractors law falls. ] (]) 19:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
			\|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 70K
			\|counter = 39
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|algo = old(93d)
			\|archive = User talk:Collect/Archive %(counter)d
			}}

			==From ]==
	:::::Collect, so then we can us the term "non-compliance" with the law. But note, you're making a big deal out the work "illegal" but I didn't use that term in the article - you just deleted that material. If you're hanging your case on that argument, your justification doesn't hold up. And anyway, sounds like your agument is WP:SYN. What's the problem with the reliable sources again? WP:BLP allows for well sourced material and this is topical and relevant. ] (]) 19:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
			<font color = red>
			{{quotation\|{{cross}} '''Copying from an unacknowledged source'''
			*Inserting a text—] word-for-word, or ] 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.</font>


			== repeating for those who did not seem to read it the first time: ==
	:::::The problem is with contentious material being inserted without consensus. You have started a RfC, let that process play out, which is its intent. ] (]) 19:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
	::::::yeah, but just because you don't like something, doesn't make it contentious as defined by WP:BLP.] (]) 19:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

			'''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.'''
	:::::::Why don't you wait and see whether others feel it is contentious or not? See ] as well. Thanks! ] (]) 19:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

	== ~~User~~ ~~notice:~~ ~~temporary~~ ~~3RR~~ ~~block~~ ==		== Poring over 40K+ edits .... ==

			On over 98% of articles where I have asserted BLP problems - there was no contest about it.
	<div style="background-color: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid red; padding: 3px;">
			#Sarah Palin is ''not'' a practitioner of Witchcraft,
	==Regarding reversions made on ] ] to ]==
			#Joe the Plumber is ''not'' a felon,
	<div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:\|a period of '''{{{time}}}'''\|a short time}} in accordance with ] for violating the ]{{#if:\| at ]}}. Please be more careful to ] or seek ] rather than engaging in an ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock\|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:\|] (]) 22:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> The duration of the is 24 hours.
			#Prescott Bush was not a manager of ''Nazi slave labour camps'' whose living heirs live off of Nazi gold,
			#Johan Hari is not a worst journalist ever to live,
			#XXX is not "gay",
			#YYY (living person) is not "homophobia",
			#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?
	Now you have something new to collect :-)

			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, 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. ] (])
	] (]) 22:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)</div>

			== for lurkers: ==

			Cinderella was a notorious crier - tears by the gallon.
	{{tlx\|unblock\|Caught me as I was uploading a clear 3RR on Inclusionist (sigh). I did not intend any improper reverts, but was trying to make proper edits on the article page. One of the "reverts" was basically reordering one cite, and one also involved changing the tense of a verb. I must say that having minor edits reverted seemed odd, indeed. I am not a major editor on article pages, preferring to use Talk pages, and if unblocked I shall keep away from editing JtP article for several days at least. I would like to get back to rescuing some articles up for deletion, to be sure. Thank you very much. ] (]) 22:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC) }}
	{\| width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;"
	\|-
	\| valign="top" style="padding: 0.1em" \| ]
	\| style="padding: 0.1em" \|

			Thus becoming the very first Grimm weaper.
	'''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s):
	<br><br>I endorse the block, but I think an early unblock is in order. The user has committed to refraining from problematic behaviour, and, as edit-warring cases go, this wasn't exactly severe. Just abide by your pledge to stay away from JtP and refrain from edit-warring, or the next block will be longer and less overturned. ] (]) 09:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

			== On this day ==
	''Request handled by:'' ] (]) 09:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
	<!-- Request accepted (after-block request) -->
	\|}

			As we hear '']'' or '']'' 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 ('']'' in Dutch). What one does not hear though is ]'s comment about retirement and death:
	== ] ==

			::''I leave when the pub closes''
	Some thoughts. Usually or mostly ] applies but in this case it's different as I see it. I'll keep it in general so you can "add names" as you wish (and not blaming me to take a side which I'm not).
	There is indeed a long-term discrepancy between you and another editor, preventing this article to involve as it should since this is the main advantage of WP in comparison to written encyclopedias. When there are two extremely different views on how the article should look like and what should be included or excluded there is only one way out: Open up, think about what this article will look like in a few month or a year despite of what you're editing now and things can smooth down to a "normal" level (regarding editing).
	Just think about it and try to solve it. I'll post the same comment at "the other" editors talk page, thus staying neutral in this matter.--] (]) 00:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
	:Thanks. I actually do try to reach accords (see the ] material) and will endeavor to do so in the future as well. ] (]) 01:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

			When ''taptoe'' has sounded the last time, and the "last post" has been visited.
	::::I don't get the "] material". Your link leads to his user page which is his sandbox and I won't (understandably I guess) search further since his last edit was in October but if you "''...try to reach accords...''" you have to do ''your'' part to accomplish it as others have ''their'' part.--] (]) 02:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

			== ] ==
	::i sincerely hope so. your opinions (usually opposite to mine) should be heard so that we can come up with a fair encyclopedia. we just need to make sure that we are all actually ''listening'' to each other. keep in mind that its ok to compromise and its ok if the page doesnt say exactly what you want it to. hope to work '''with you''' in the future and not against you. ] (]) 02:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

			::''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'' ]
	== ] ==

			Quotation of the day. 9 February 2016
	Can you please respond to my comment there? - ]\|] 11:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
	:Did so. ] (]) 16:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
	::Can we stop people altering the political stance of the Daily Mail. There is a guy who keeps changing it to 'populist'. The Mail is NOT populist in the slightest, it is clearly Conservative. Is there a way we can stop him vandalising it? Thanks ] (]) 20:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
	:::I know. I asked on the Talk page for any solid cite for "populist" -- but I suspect the editor involved just does not care. ] (]) 21:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
	::::I do care, actually. And I'm not a 'vandal'. I suspected that the Daily Mail's political allegiance would be a matter of contention, but I didn't realise just how quickly it would be jumped on. One has to wonder what the agenda is here. Whether the paper is 'populist' or 'conservative' or 'Conservative' is actually really a rather subjective question. I suppose it could be argued that 'populist' isn't strictly a political tag. However, there is NO way you can state that it is 'clearly' Conservative, Christian1985. And as for this, Collect: "try as I might, I could not find a cite for calling the Daily Mail "populist" for political views"... well, you obviously didn't search very hard. Here are just a few quotes:
	::::"This is the modern Daily Mail, the paper that is becoming more populist by the week as it seeks to become Britain's biggest-selling daily title."
	::::http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/jun/06/dailymail.mondaymediasection
	::::"Philosophically it belongs to a tradition of emotional populism that has had many champions in the West..."
	::::http://www.shakeupmedia.com/blog/2008/11/11/column-november-11th-in-defence-of-populism
	::::"How on earth can a supposedly conservative paper take this editorial slant? Well, like fascism, it’s populist, and taps into the readers’ prejudices, fears, greed, selfishness and hatred..."
	::::http://boatangdemetriou.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/why-the-daily-mail-is-a-fascist-not-a-conservative-paper <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Note that your cites do not say it is "populist" in political orientation, but that its "tone" or "slant" or "emotion" is "populist." As far as being aligned with any actual political group -- that alignmet is "Conservative." And it is alignment with a party or group which is what the infobox asks for. I would suggest the fact that a huge plurality of its readers call themselves "conservative" is sufficient. "Populist" is not a defined British party, organization or movement. ] (]) 13:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
	:Who are you to say that a huge 'plurality' of the paper's readers call themselves "conservative"? More subjective opinion. Please also note my earlier comment about 'populist' not being a strictly political tag. I used those three quotes to demonstrate that there are actually references to the Daily Mail being populist. I originally made the change to see what kind of response would be generated, and you have mostly helped me to confirm my hypothesis. ] (]) 16:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
	::The term is "political AFFILIATION"-- there is no "populist affiliation" in UK politics that I can find at all. Per cite in article, number of self-identified Conservatives reading the Daily Mail is way bigger than any other party. Hence a reasonable statement that the paper is Conservative. If you can show me any "populist party" in the UK, I would be delighted! ] (]) 16:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
	::Well congratulations, another meaningless victory for supporters of the Daily Mail. I'm very happy for you. I'm also quite capable of reading non-bold text. ] (]) 16:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
	:::Sorry -- my keyboard colon and semi-colon do not always function as designed. ] (]) 16:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

			== ] marketing run amok ==
	==Barnstar==
	{\| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
	\|rowspan="2" valign="middle" \| ]
	\|rowspan="2" \|
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" \| '''The Guidance Barnstar'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \| "The Guidance Barnstar may be awarded to users who help others locate valuable resources, information, or assistance."

			ecigs at ''Darth Vaper''
	Thank you '''SO MUCH''' for find ] that I was only vaguely aware of before.

			major stores at ''Darth Maul''
	Best wishes, ] (]) 20:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
	\|}

			Dating service at ''Luke Shywalker''
	==The word Anent==
	Just a friendly suggestion: To get your point across more clearly use "about" next time. . ] (]) 20:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
	:<g> I guess I am older than you are. ] (]) 21:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
	::Per your cite -- the ''etymology'' is Old English, the usage is still current. Actually it is also apparently Scots. ] (]) 21:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

			Tanning salon at ''Obi Wan Kenobi''
	== ] ==

			So far no suggestions for the female characters ...
	Please respond to my posting on the Bill White talk page rather than repeatedly inserting the material you're inserting. If you can get a consensus there, great. But if not, please do not keep reinserting the disputed matter. ] (]) 22:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

			== ArbCom Election Guide 2017 ==
	:Note that I did '''not''' revert your edit. I doi question whether the material about "possible" sentencing runs afoul fo WP:CRYSTAL, however. Thanks! ] (]) 22:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

			See ]
	::<g>... whats that mean? i asked you on bill white, but maybe you didnt see. ] (]) 01:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

			Highly recommended candidates are {{u\|Premeditated Chaos}}, {{u\|The Rambling Man}}, {{u\|SMcCandlish}} and {{u\|BU Rob13}}.

			'''The recommendations are based on answers to my questions only, and nothing else.'''
	:::Dates back to early online usage for "grin". See also "LOL" and the like. I've been online for 26 years now, and these antedate the "emoticons" you probably are used to. ] (]) 02:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
	Do you believe in reincarnation?

			== diffs easily verified by anyone looking at the MKUCR history ==
	==Thank you for being so suprisingly noble and unpredictable==
	Your behavior at ] reminds me of NulcearUmpf, a "mortal enemy" on Misplaced Pages who taught me how to edit war with acronyms. We fought for years, and one day, after I wrote an emotional essay, NulcearUmpf did a 360 ideologically, he betrayed his friends and became a staunch ally of those with marginal views. He died here, when those former allies got him indefinitely booted.

			04:19 to 04:24 4 June three edits including changes to recent edits (reverts) after five edits by others.
	Collect, you are the last person I ever thought would vote "keep" on a MfD. The attributes and behavior I tend to respect the most is when someone does something so unexpectedly noble, a small act of kindness, something that, with all my flaws, I would never do myself.

			16:03 to 18:29 3 June seven edits including changes to recent edits (reverts) after thirteen edits by others
	Thanks for surprising me again. ] (]) 16:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

			03:01 to 05:57 3 June seven edits with two intervening edits by another, after three edits by others including clear reverts.
	:Check my history of votes <g>. I figure I am about 60% Keep, 20% "weak keep", 10% "comment only" and 10% "delete." Also on AfD and Tfd as well. On the other hand, I never met a long article which could not be shortened. I have saved some articles from AfD by adding refs to them as well or finding cites for notability. Did you read ] at all? ] (]) 16:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

			{{hat\|diffs}}

			(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 50.49.143.77 (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 Misplaced Pages'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. ## with lowercase for alpha pages. s.=>§. See also: and See: in citations to plain citations. <br/> => ; 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. ##[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)

			{{hab}}

Latest revision as of 16:24, 23 September 2024

This editor 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 Misplaced Pages 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:Defend to the Death

WP:Midden

WP:Baby and Bathwater

WP:Wikifurniture

WP:Contentious

WP:Sex, Religion and Politics

WP:Editorially involved

WP:Mutual admiration society

WP:Source pH

WP:Sledgehammer

WP:Variable RS

WP:Misplaced Pages and shipwrights

WP:Repetition in Argumentation

WP:The task of an editor

User:Collect/BLP

User:Collect/þ

Some of the articles I have created:

etc.

From WP:Plagiarism

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:

Poring over 40K+ edits ....

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

Sarah Palin is not a practitioner of Witchcraft,
Joe the Plumber is not a felon,
Prescott Bush was not a manager of Nazi slave labour camps whose living heirs live off of Nazi gold,
Johan Hari is not a worst journalist ever to live,
XXX is not "gay",
YYY (living person) is not "homophobia",
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, 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:

Cinderella was a notorious crier - tears by the gallon.

Thus becoming the very first Grimm weaper.

On this day

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

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

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

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

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).

diffs
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 50.49.143.77 (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 Misplaced Pages'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. ## 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. ##[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)

diffs

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 50.49.143.77 (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 Misplaced Pages'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. ## 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. ##[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)