User talk:Collect/archive6

Business Plot

I have been reading the stuff at business plot... and the content keeps flipping back and forth. I hate to see good editors at odds with each other. It seems the added material is related to the overall picture of this conspiracy. I wanted to ask Ikip for better cites cause the relationship between the added information and the conspiracy is amazing. Then I see you in disagreement with him. Darn. Can some of the article be split off into several smaller articles and still maintain notability and cohesiveness. Its all fascinating. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The "conspiracy" is a footnote in history except for some conspiracy buffs. The "added material" in the sense of huge numbers of references which do noit relate to the actual topic is useless. The article was actually stable until he added all the stuff about Nazis and the like -- and the material about individuals whichis fully referenced in the cites does not belong in the article at all. And, of course, the bit about "media spin" totally does not belong at all. The idea is to make readable articles which do not misrepresent the weight of the event. Inclusionist seems not to accept that. :( (and please re-add the npov tag -- that sort of thing is not considered properly removable if there is any contest) Thanks! 04:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Collect (talk)

Opps. Sorry. I'll get it back right now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you caught it. Sorry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So your saying the citations need to back up content... and so he should add the related content? Should I advise him to do so? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip removed some of the worst POV language -- but the article is still overburdened with marginaly relevant (at best) cites and material -- including claims not even made by the committee in its report. Take a look at the stable version before please. Only material directly related to the "plot" and directly cited belongs in the article. The other material does not belong in the article at all. Thanks! Collect (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is indeed a monster. Spin-off articles could be well worth considering. How would one best determine what to spin-off and how much, without detroying the cohesiveness of the existing article? Looking back... this thing has been growing and shrinking for months and months. Heck... the talk page is longer than the aricle. It needs a spin-off too (chuckle). Will help if able. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The article had, in fact, been cohesive and NPOV. The ading of scads of unrelated material and insertion of an OR "timeline" and material which makes charges against people which were never tried in court makes the article quite a monster now. Collect (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

With your latest edit, I think you meant {{synthesis}}. THF (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Likely so <g>. I am not a huge template user to be sure. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Devdas

Check it out: http://www.livemint.com/2008/06/05234329/Multiple-takes.html I feel pretty good right about now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Real American

Sorry to not reply to this at the time. Yes, his user talk page isn't filled with welcomes and messages about how wonderful he is; normally we give welcomes to users who contribute productively. His talkpage is full of "threats" yes, I'm assuming you mean the request to shut up that he added, the deletion tags which are a standard response to somebody creating an utterly useless and WP:MADEUP page and the blocks put there in response to him creating useless articles and leaving lovely tidbits like this around. I did try and explain the notability criteria to him, but he doesn't seem interested in finding decent sourcing only proclaiming that he "didn't do it to get on the news". Quite frankly I don't understand how you can go "keep, because we didn't try and be lovely to him and give him a hug and maybe some chocolates" when every interaction with him has been met with bile and a refusal to even try and toe the line. Ironholds (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have had mixed results dealing rationally with some folks (see Ikip/Inclusionist/othernames) (Tautologist/othernames) and a few others -- perhaps he is indeed one example who is so recalcitrant that the treatment was proper, but somehow I think that having others also post on his talk page would have been better than seeing one person iterate warnings <g>. I still suspect that we lose far too many starting out (I ran into an actual campaign worker for a political party who accused *me* of being one <g>). Thus I am more apt to give two bites of the apple before coming down hard. At that point, by the way, I would be apt to propose the deletion myself! Collect (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats fair enough, I guess, although I'm not really sure what could have been done to get someone else involved; it was a rather self-contained process in that all his real edits were to my talkpage/his talkpage in response to something I'd said/so on. Anyway, thanks for your speedy response and for giving me something to think on; getting multiple people involved does sound like a better idea for the future. Thanks :). Ironholds (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Stay on track

Collect, you've several times stated on Talk:William Timmons that other editors agree with you and that the sources don't make the connection of the memos to the election. These appear to be false and unsupported statements. Have you even read the sources? Or looked for a name for who these other alleged editors would be? If so, you know they're false (or correct me if I'm wrong). Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I stated that the material was IRRELEVANT. I did not say OR or SYN, so I would appreciate an accurate post from you on this. The election had no relevance to Timmons and the Thurmond memo. None. Collect (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

But your statements in support of your opinion are factually wrong, which is why they're off-track. The 1972 election is discussed in the cited book as the key reason they wanted to get Lennon out. Read it. I added page numbers to the cite to help you (even though the whole book is about it). Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing related to Timmons in the book is a copy of the memo. No text mention, and no text mention in the book remotely connecting Timmons to anything else at all is in the cite. Collect (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The connection of Timmons to the memos is clear in the sources and supports what is stated in the article. The connection of the memos to the activities of the Nixon white house and their historically notable activities is also clear in those same pages. Why would we mention that Timmons received and sent a couple of memos and not say what those memos had to do with anything? Your statements like "The election had no relevance to Timmons and the Thurmond memo" are clearly absurd in light of what's in the cited pages. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources, by showing the memos, connect Timmons to the memos. They do not show a connection between the Thurmond memo and the campaign. They do not show any connection between Timmons and anything more than answering Thurmond;s question. They do not show any connection between Thurmond and Lennon and the campaign. In fact, the texts do not say anything really about Timmons other than the fact he got a memo from Thurmond and that he answered it. Any added sysnthesis is not in the sources at all. Collect (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

They absolutely DO show a connection between the memos and the campaign. We have not synthesized anything, nor said anything extra about Timmons, not even that he was the obvious person to care about Lennon disrupting the convention that he was planning. What phrase is not supported by several of the cited sources? Dicklyon (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Then use a precise quote from an RS saying "Timmons acted to deport Lennon to help the campaign" or anything remotely near that -- none of your current cites come close (and I searched them thoroughly). And "The ACLU sought Timmons memos because Timmons had something to do with Lennon" or anything remotely near that. All you have is Timmons responded to a Senator's memo." And your cites do not say anything more than that about Timmons. Collect (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't make such a claim unless I had such a clear source. That's why I don't make such a claim. Sure, one can easily read it between the lines of what is sources, but Timmons didn't leave a document saying exactly what he did and why. Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) IOW, there is no proven connection stated by any of your cites connecting Timmons with anything more than responding to Thurmond's memo. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you seem to think that. I've only stated what's in the sources, as I said, not what's between the lines. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazi, Swastika References Being Purged from Syrian Social Nationalist Party

Would you mind having a look at the problem of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi history and swastika flag being systematically deleted/vandalized? This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. References from many reliable sources are provided. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Thanks, Histopher Critchens (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll watch it -- but I am not really an expert on that party ... Collect (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fascist corporatism

Greetings, You are correct that the article does not contain the corporatism connection. Articles should justify their categories. The first line of Portal:Fascism confirms it, and the Corporatism article contains a section on italian fascist corporatism, too.

This aspect could use some elucidation. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I.e. corporatism is more a subset of fascism than the other way around. Collect (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, from the principal of it Fascism is a type of corporatism, not the other way around. All cases of fascism display the subjugation of the individual to the purposes of the state (corporatism). Not all cases of corporatism are cases of fascism however (military, centralized gov't, supression of opposition, etc.) This is supported by what is already in WP. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Rick Warren article - Proposal 2.0

I confess that I can't see where the latest proposal from you is stated. Can you restate it for me? I would like to get this part of the article settled and am certainly willing to compromise where appropriate. Thanks. CarverM (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(from T:RW page) try: Obama chose Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation. Several organizations criticized Omama as a result, contending that Warren had compared legalized same-sex marriages to the legalization of polygamy, incest and pedophilia. [1][17][3][18][19][20][21][22][23] based on Warren's December 2008 Beliefnet interview [24]. Warren sent a video message to his church that said that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but does oppose the redefining of marriage.[11] Warren publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.",[26] eliminating the legal right of same-sex couples to marry.[27] (then very short abortion paragraph which seems really minor in news coverage) (from other page) Collect (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Try this, although I'm not sure I'm wholly supportive, I'm just brainstorming.

Warren was chosen by Obama to deliver the inaugural invocation. Both came under criticism as Warren had been a public supporter of Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Some also incorrectly asserted that Warren had equated the legalization of same-sex marriages to the legalization of polygamy, incest and pedophilia when he was simply opposing the redefintion of marriage.

I am not in agreement at all with the inclusion of the Beliefnet article nor some of the other YouTube and blog sources for reasons well developed by Lyonscc and others. However, I do agree that there was a controversy around the inauguration and that it should be mentioned. I just don't see the need to blow it up larger than it is so that the gay lobby can insert inappropriate materials into a BLP. I hope I'm being logical in this. I look forward to your response. CarverM (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read my opinions, I actually think the entire section is being blown up well out of ptoportion. It is unlikely that "incorrectly" would get accepted by the others as a compromise ... the ide is to get as neutral a section as possible.

"Warren was chosen by Obama to deliver the inaugural invocation. Some groups criticized this Both came under criticism as Warren had been a public supporter of Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Some also incorrectly asserted that Warren had equated the legalization of same-sex marriages to the legalization of polygamy, incest and pedophilia when he was simply opposing the redefintion of marriage. which he denied in a message to his church. " is far more likely to work ... care to propose it? Collect (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I like your changes. What I don't have the time for is the references. What might you suggest? CarverM (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Propose the language -- the cites come afterwards. Collect (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll consider it over the weekend. CarverM (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:TAGGING

Very amused to see you cite to this, because I created it two years ago. Glad to see its message has disseminated out to the editorial masses. THF (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Gosh -- I am now part of the "masses"? <g> Collect (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's just that I'd forgotten it was out there and hadn't used it since 2007, so when you cited it, it looked awfully familiar... THF (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Come join the circus

Editor x teaches editor y how to behave, to the thrill of hundreds of wikipedians in the big top

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:THF_and_User:Collect. It is the greatest second greatest show on Earth. Scratch that, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Colonel_Warden is now the greatest show on Earth. Ikip (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Page not yet existing. Collect (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk-page conduct

Word of advice: bolding on talk-pages is viewed similar to CAPITALIZATION -- i.e., screaming. It is more WP:CIVIL to use italics or to avoid it entirely, except in the cases of !votes and polls. THF (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa but at least I don't use "red" as some did <g>. Comes from being in a computer culture which even allowed font changes in sigs ... Collect (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your OUTING complaint

Collect you seem very intent on presenting the last word in relation to this matter at my talk page. So that you can continue on good terms with other editors at Rick Warren et al I have left you a note here at the very least for your information so you can see that your concern has not been ignored but also so you can add a compromised response to the two editors you have accused; that is if you are of a mind to do so.--VS ^talk 22:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Collect (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Good return note - thank you also.--VS ^talk 22:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Collect (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Jon Wiener

Thanks for removing the refvertisements - I wasn't sure about them as it appeared they were linked as 'tasters' for the book. -- samj _in^out 16:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome! Collect (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Hello, I have blocked you for a period of 48 hours for violating the three revert rule on the Drudge Report article. The article was locked for 3 days by admin Deacon, and even after that time you and User:Soxwon still continued to edit war. In future please consider adopting a one revert rule. If you believe this block is unjustified, please use the {{unblock|YOUR REASON HERE}} template directly below this paragraph. Thanks and regards, Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Collect (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I regret the inadvertant violation -- in retrospect the question over whether the EB should be labeled "online" should have pended as I already posted on RS/N about the question. The article is one of the more minor articles I have been working on, and I shall avoid that article for a week or so to let any ill-feeling die down. Thank you. Collect (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were blocked a few months ago, and then unblocked after a similar promise. The lesson I fear, is yet to be learned. For that reason I feel I have to decline this request. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|I realize how harmful editwarring is to the WP project, and I am very sorry for my actions. I shall specifically strictly restrict myself to 1RR or less for at least a month, and I apologized to Soxwon, and asked that he be unblocked. I shall also avoid the Drudge Report article for at least a week, as I have many other articles being worked on. Collect (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)}}

Thank you -- now on to those Skittles ... Collect (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Same happened to me the other day; after Collect reverted 4 times and I warned him, I inadvertantly did a bit too much warring with another guy and got blocked. The other guy even recommended unblocking me, but it didn't help. What can you do? Dicklyon (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked for Soxwon to be unblocked -- neither of us intended it to be considered a war for sure, and the back and forth of seeking terms we could both accept was, I fear, overinterpreted. I tend to not compain about others as a rule. Have a great day! Collect (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jon Wiener

I reverted your deletion of the high school graduation; it's generally accepted that high schools are notable, it's helpful for creating high-school alumni lists, and Wiener actually did go to an interesting high school. THF (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Alas -- the entire article was so puffy that I viewed it as an exemplar of "too much detail which does not affect the perspn's notability." Collect (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Buchanan book

What book? THF (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa -- a book was, I thought, announced -- but does not exist. Buchanan wrote articles, and that should be the word used. The NYT, by the way, has not considered him worthy of a mention <g>. Can you, while we are at it, critique User:Collect/essay? Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The essay is trying to do too many things at once (narrow WP:N, redefine WP:NPOV and WP:CITE and WP:FA) and will not be the worth the effort of the fight you will have over it, which I strongly suspect will be fruitless. There isn't a consensus on Wikipedia that agrees with the entirety of your positions; I'm not even sure I do. If you just want it out there as your personal opinion in userspace, I'm not sure what good it will do, but. If you want policy change, better to start at WP:VPP and related WT page on something narrow, but better still for you to first build up your credibility by doing a lot of quality editing, and reducing your dispute-to-edit ratio. THF (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with it all <g> which is why I ask for opinions. I have about a 2000 to 1 dispute ratio <g> (edits to major disputes) which is lower than most admins have. Collect (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that your edits (at least recently) are largely on contentious pages: Drudge, Warren, Business Plot, Timmons, and, fairly or unfairly, you're not viewed as a peacemaker on any of them. I, too, am frustrated by the vast number of POV policy violations in the encyclopedia, but it's a big encyclopedia, and there are lots of places to improve it. Make it easier for editors who will not agree with you politically to understand that you are not just here to pick fights by doing more work on uncontentious articles. You might even find that you enjoy that side of things more: I certainly find it more satisfying when my improvement-to-drama ratio is higher than when I need to make fifty edits to defend a minor deletion in a minor article. The entire set of hundreds of Guantanamo habeas articles are an appalling mess of pov and spam and coatrack and factual inaccuracy, but there's an ironclad group of editors who will defend even the most minor change to the death, so it's not worth the hassle and I leave it alone. THF (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you check, you will find that often I end up making the compromise possible between people who are on both sides of me <g>. Look at the Rick Warren article where a compormise is going to be made because I took a stand between both sides. Avoiding contentious articles just because they are contentious seems craven -- especially since most of my edits are, indeed, on non-contnetious articles (such as Skittles (confectionery) and the like, or on WP related pages. Collect (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, but I'm describing perceptions, which are going to be the controlling factor. Editors of your political stripe are held to a higher standard on this site--witness the extreme lack of civility that Td314 got away with for ages, and wouldn't even have been reprimanded for if I hadn't stood up. If you had done that, you'd still be blocked. THF (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I found [1] to be illuminating about the charge Bush owned a shipping company <g>, "0008.jpg" for the charge about a Dutch bank "owning" Union Bank, "0012.jog" for the claim that a Thyssen connection was specifically shown, and "0014.jog" attributes the claims about the UBC history specifically to "Knight Woolley" and does not ascribe it as fact determined by the alien property custodian. And "0015.jpg" shows Bush was specifically not one of the incorporators of Union Bank. Amazing -- but hnn kept these documents readily available (I did not find them otherwise) and has the cover fax sheets showing these are the documents Buchanan relies on. BTW my "stripe" is middle of the road, and I can give you references for it. Collect (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Middle of the road" is within the stripe I'm talking about. Mainstream American political views are not viewed favorably here. THF (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Burke Group

You're aware of the synthesis issue; can I get your opinion on whether I've correctly placed a tag here? Lengthy discussion on talk page. Thanks. THF (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I took the opportunity to simplify the article a tad as well. Collect (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

apologies

Hi, I can see clearly now that I have been making some pain in the butt edits. I'm going to be more constructive henceforth. Abbarocks (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Collect (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Sockpuppetry

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#THF_and_Collect_sockpuppetry. Ty 07:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Verges on abuse since no such evidence can exist for a very simple reason. Collect (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

At AN/I. [2]. Mike Doughney (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fascist eugenics and abortion euthenasia etc.

I think the key is the fascist states enforce its use on certain people rather than regulate against it. Dont forget this segment relates to the social Darwinism section and refers to the fascist use of these techniques to enforce their version of social Darwinism. Obviously the use of social Darwinism is more characteristic of the Nazi groups rather than the Italian Fascists, but I dont see an argument to say that racial policies aren't an aspect of fascist dogma, and abortion etc is a tool used to enforce that dogma. It all comes back to the definition again - that section in the article still needs work, so that it clearly states that it is the disputed definition of fascism that causes most of the argument. Mdw0 (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it appears that there is no single way fascists states handle any of this, and they disagree a lot. And a lot of non-fascist states do a lot more than "regulate" these. And no connection between using abortion and racism -- in fact some assert that abortion is racist in the US - yet we are not fascist. And if there is no way to connect the position directly with a core function of fascism, it does not belong in the article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Business Plot, John Buchanan (American politician), Smedley Butler, etc.

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/march-2009/the-truth-is-out-there THF (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Collect (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Rick Santelli

Hi Collect. Any thoughts on how the "rant" section should be handled as far as outside criticism/comments? Right now "it" is more than 1/2 the article, but others want to add even more, ie John Stewart's opinions, ect. Anyways no biggie as always, cheers! --Tom 14:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems under control but watchlisted now. Collect (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much! Tom 17:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Limbaugh

From what I've seen I agree with your edits, they're mostly weasel words. However, you might want to come to the talk page so we avoid Drudge Report: The Sequel. Soxwon (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I abhor excess verbiag (as I think you know). Collect (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes quite lol. I'm combing them as well, the phony soldier controversy section seems loaded down with too much detail. Soxwon (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Amazing how disagreements turn out to be agreements, isn't it? Next week you will surely be accused of being my soxpuppet. Collect (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

*Rimshot* :)

Soxwon (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs) 15:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

Frankly, I think you are much better off getting John Kenney to comment. Although he and I have disagreed in the past he is always rigorous about wikipedia policies and scholarship - and he really knows the scholarship on Fascism far better than I do! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- I was just amazed that a person whose own choice of words was used now accuses them of being POV. You'ld think he would understand that when you are given in to, that pushing it further does not work all that well. Collect (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

RfA?

OK, I give up... which of the Opposers has been indef'd? No names, just the number will do. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa -- just a suspected alternate account as far as can be proven of a banned user. Thpugh he ought to be banned as well <g>. Collect (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Let it develop"

The template was/is still completely under development. Going to the template alone does not provide a full sample with parameters, for example: I invite you to reconsider buying into contentions of "bad faith". Thank you. PetersV       TALK 17:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I created the template. Please rest assured that I have nothing against America or Americans. They're a great people, confident people.

The reference to North America was borrowed from WP:BIAS and only used in the first working version of the template. It has by now been replaced.

Seeing that the issues you mentioned in your vote have been resolved, please consider reassessing the template's current version. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As a courtesy I changed to "comment" but I would urge you to try language more akin to "This is a topic of importance to Latvians. Please, if you have questions about its importance, post on the Talk page here and ask. Thank you." Collect (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)