User:Collect/sandbox

Examples of one Wikipedia article introduction over time:

Article length 194,000 characters total:

Joseph Pomeroy Widney (December 26, 1841 — July 4, 1938) was a polymathic pioneer American physician, medical topographer, scholar-educator, clergyman, entrepreneur-philanthropist, proto-environmentalist, prohibitionist, philosopher of religion, controversial racial theorist, and prolific author. Widney was a 19th century "renaissance man", his multiple talents earned him a nickname, the "Father of Southern California" where he lived for most of his adult life and his great contributions developed the region in the late 19th century.

He served as the second President of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, California and as the founding dean of the USC School of Medicine, and was one of the co-founders and first general superintendents of the Church of the Nazarene, and the primary founder of the Los Angeles County Medical Association. One of the "most conspicuous Southern Californians of his generation", Widney was a cultural leader in Los Angeles for nearly seventy years and the "mystic seer in residence and prophet of Southern Californian Anglo-Saxonism".

Flesch-Kincaid Grade level 25, reading ease -12,

Article length pruned to 61,000

Joseph Pomeroy Widney, M.D. D.D. LL.D (December 26, 1841 – July 4, 1938) was a polymathic pioneer American physician, clergyman, entrepreneur-philanthropist, proto-environmentalist, prohibitionist, racial theorist, and prolific author.

He was the second President of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and the founding dean of the USC School of Medicine. He was one of the founders and first general superintendents of the Church of the Nazarene, and primary founder of the Los Angeles County Medical Association. One of the "most conspicuous Southern Californians of his generation". Widney was a cultural leader in Los Angeles for nearly seventy years.

Flesch-Kincaid grade level 13, reading ease +22.

(material deleted by request of another editor)

[1] *I'd also invite Collect to provide a diff for the assertion that someone has called him "anti-Semitic" -- that's a serious accusation, and if it's true then there should be a sanction which was odd as I have never on any post said anyone called me "anti-Semitic" at all.

[2] We now have the proposer opposing his own RfC -- so to avoid any further ridiculousness... hatting an open RfC - and I find no rule saying a person posing a question must have a specific answer to the question. [3] since you have a well-entrenched habit of trying to put words into the mouths of other editors, I've decided not to worry about it when you do that to me. Have fun

Consider the likelihood of two editors just accidentally editing the same page within the timeframe indicated: (FWIW - the time difference is generally between my edit and the subsequent edit of my stalker as in some cases it was not a blatant response to my edit or were in different matter on a noticeboard etc.)

Min time between edits

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 25 seconds
2. Breitbart (website) 56 seconds
3. Talk:Pamela Geller 59 seconds
4. Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot 1 minutes
5. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 1 minutes
6. Campaign for "santorum" neologism 1 minutes
7. Talk:Outrage (2009 film) 1 minutes
8. Talk:Michael Grimm (politician) 1 minutes
9. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons 1 minutes
10. Marco Rubio 2 minutes
11. Talk:Marco Rubio 2 minutes [4] "never heard of talkingpointsmemo" on 21 Nov 2012 ... when he posted in a discussion about sources in 2010 which included it in a list)
12. Talk:Alex Jones (radio host) 2 minutes
13. Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines 2 minutes (super example)
14. James Delingpole 2 minutes (blatant)
15. Talk:Chip Rogers 3 minutes
16. Talk:Robert Kagan 3 minutes
17. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard 3 minutes
18. Michael Grimm (politician) 3 minutes
19. Talk:Rick Santorum 3 minutes

19 pages all with a maximum of 3 minutes between editor interactions with my edit being first - what are the odds? Especially considering some comments therein.

Another editor:

[5] arrived at a discussion out of nowhere ... "@Collect: I'm not clear on the nature of the BLP concern here. Is the existence of the list a BLP violation in your view? Or are there specific people whom you view as inappropriately included? If the latter, please specify so that your concern can be addressed constructively " Note the "article" was deleted at AfD so I suspect my caveats were well-taken.

"I'm afraid you lost me somewhere around the middle of your paragraph; these sorts of stream-of-consciousness posts can be impenetrable and incoherent to those of us who aren't heavily steeped in the dispute in question, particularly when unaccompanied by diffs. You seem very concerned with the potentially anti-Semitic implications of this list, but I am not seeing how membership (or non-membership) implies anything of the sort. If anti-Semitism is a key concern in this dispute, then it's a basic responsibility on your part to explain your concern more clearly and provide diffs so that it can be addressed. From what has been posted so far, I don't see the connection. I'm still lacking answers to my questions—you've now repeated several times that you find signatures on a letter to be insufficient evidence of membership, but it appears to me that inclusion in this article is instead based on reliable secondary sources, so your comment doesn't seem to have any relevance to the dispute at hand. If I'm missing something, please clarify, ideally concisely and with diffs" Again - the AfD discussion reached a far different conclusion than that proffered by a person who(presumably) merely happened to see my name - and instead of addressing the topic, decided to attack me as "incoherent" etc.

[6] "There is an obvious difference between "seeking to do harm" and including negative but relevant/well-sourced encyclopedic information which might reflect negatively on an article subject. The former is categorically forbidden, while the latter is explicitly authorized by policy, at least in regard to public figures. You continually conflate the two situations, and you tend to regard any effort to explain the distinction as a personal attack—an unfortunate combination of behaviors which partially explains the soon-to-opened ArbCom case" which again takes a topic as an opportunity to personally attack me. FWIW, the exact material he so zealously defends was found at AfD to be against Wikipedia policy.

[7] shows him acting as an admin where he had already voiced an editorial position. [8] with the polite edit summary: this is an administrative action; don't reverse it again, as your edit violates the talkpage guidelines in several ways; i've amended the heading to which you objected)' which is a clear case of a person acting both as an editor who expressed opinions on an issue and as an administrator making his opinions stick. One may wear one hat only.

Three examples - all within a very short period of time, indeed.

Oh -- the "article" was deleted as: The clear consensus here is to delete the article, as it has been found to be a synthesized WP:POVFORK. So much for the editor/admin's assertions that it was compliant with Wikipedia policy.