Previous · Index · Next

Jump-to links
2024   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2023   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2022   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2021   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2020   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2019   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2018   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2017   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2016   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2015   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2014   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2013   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2012   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2011   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2010   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2009   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2008   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2007   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2006   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2005   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2004                                                           Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

I was asked which editors had supported what I considered SYNTH in the PNAC article. MrX said he had not supported the SYNTH, and I struck his name - Fyddlestix said he had not supported the edit - and he accused me in several places of "Thanks for the ping, I also had no idea that a dispute I am involved in (and my actions/edits) were being discussed (and grossly misrepresented) here. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)", " Also, this is just petty. Your refusal to accept RS as RS is the reason why that article is over-cited. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC) ", "@Collect:, this is not about the article or the AFD. It's about your behavior. You knowingly made false statements about me, Ubikwit, JBH, and Mr X's position on this issue above, behind our backs, without notifying us. " (note that since then I ping anyone whom I mention in any post where remotely applicable). Then[reply]

The AFD could land on delete right now and I'd happily accept that - what I cannot accept is your refusal to take responsibility for your own lies, misrepresentations, and insults. misrepresentations. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC) sure looks like hFyddlestix directly and specifically accused me of lying - before I suggested that he was, alas, the one who forgot his own stated stance.

Meanwhile MastCell has iterated claims that I charged editors with Anti-Semitism - which is a gross and flagrant accusation one well ought to take umbrage at " Collect has invoked McCarthy here, here, here, here, here, and here (with a bonus implication of anti-Semitism), and that's just in the last couple of days. ... MastCell 17:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC), and the wonderful calumnies iterated as "Collect has kept up a steady drumbeat of comments and edit summaries which backhandedly imply that his opponents are promoting anti-semitism, conspiracy ..." (from Fyddlestix), Mastcell: Ubikwit has edit-warred to restore extremely dubious external links, while Collect has repeated unsubstantiated and irresponsible accusations of anti-Semitism against Ubikwit. MastCell ^Talk 06:52, 6 February 2015) " which has the exceedingly minor problem that I have never ever accused Ubikwit of anti-Semitism -- which I pointed out to Mastcell at [1].

But since he iterates the same abusive claim that I called anyone "anti-Semitic" I trust you will show as much umbrage as at my use of "lie" where the other party made the specific accusation first. And files an SPI on me when I was unable to respond to the absurd claims made therein. Cheers. If ArbCom would give me sufficient space to answer each "charge" at length - as with the "Collect used the word 'lie'" argument, the case would take me over 60 hours to prepare , and over 10,000 words. Cheers. And please avoid judging anyone on the basis of a single post wrenched from context - it is not a good idea. If you were repeatedly accused of calling someone "anti-Semitic" - would you let it slide with three words? But hell -- MastCell at [2] calls me Charles Pooter, [3] states the PNAC SYNTH (found so at AfD) was not a BLP violation <g>, and the like.

For the harassment allegation - I sent the list of Viriditas diffs to several arbs - which they should certainly know about. Why not to AE? Because I was unable to post at AE as I pointed out to Sandstein. Just as I was unable to answer the SPI accusation made by Fyddlestix. I trust you can see why folks making multiple simultaneous actions against a user might conceivably be viewed as harassment by that user? I have thought you generally of sound judgment, and ask now that you consider this post in the light of a rapid judgment that I was guilty of saying "lie" when the other editor made that precise accusation against me - and no one gives a damn. What I did was use his own claim against him - with diffs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found the "lie" quote most applicable:

" Sorry Fyddlestix - you supported the material, and saying I lied when I said you supported it is not precisely accurate. Collect (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (please also copy as this is a particularly horrid accusation against me which I suggest my diffs completely demolish. I had long ago corrected my listing of MrX as inapt.) "

from my UT page current. I daresay it is not exactly what you had imagined my language usage to be. Collect (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this is in response to, maybe my comment at the request for arbitration. I thought I was very clear that I believed there was a prima facie case that there were behavioural issues here. I have been careful not to ascribe blame, for two reasons:

1. As you say these things are often complicated and need proper investigation to fully understand them.
2. Secondly there is not always someone to blame. People take statements with a more negative intent than was intended, and often reply in kind.

In this case, for example, "akin to Mc Carthyism" (or whatever the phraseology was) is interpreted as an accusation of Mc Carthyism. It's not an enormous leap, and one that we should be wary of giving other editors the chance to make.

I agree for example, that your statement

I am sure there may be "evil Jews with dual loyalties who would use biological weapons to commit genocide and who would order the US to stand down when under attack on 9/11 in order to make the US an Imperial Power" in this world - but under no circumstances and in no manner should we contribute any such implications or inferences about living persons here or in any article.

does not explicitly accuse anyone of anti-semitism. It can however be read that way. It can also be read as anti-semitic in itself.

These are places we need to choose our words with extreme care. For example we should never " contribute any such implications or inferences about living persons" - or indeed anything. But you seem to want to say (and you should have made it perfectly clear if not) that we should not state such a thing outright.

This I think is the substantive point. If such a thing were attested by reliable sources, as for example in the case of Lord Haw Haw (were he still alive), we would absolutely be right to say so, it would not be a contradiction of BLP. If it were a controversy that was widely noted in reliable sources, we would be absolutely right to report the controversy.

BLP is designed to avoid Wikipedia being the cause of unnecessary suffering through the repetition of unsourced or poorly sourced gossip, and to maintain general accuracy. It is not a protection against well sourced fact, or a tool to cover up the fact that notable allegations were made, when that is widely and reliably sourced. For example the false rape allegation against the Hamiltons are (rightly) documented on Wikipedia.

It would be crazy if we (society/Wikipedia) were to protect people to the extent that we cannot talk about hier associations. That, I think, is why there is no BLP ground to the PNAC/Bush argument. There is certainly a discussion to be had about SYNTH, COATRACK and maybe NPOV (if, for example, many of the PNC signatories ended up working for Obama).

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC).

Hi Rich Farmbrough, thank you very much for your welcome message and for the useful links too. I really appreciate it. I am very new to Wikipedia and I am trying to learn as much as I can. If you have any advice, please do pass this on! I look forward to contributing in the future. All the best, (Amymiller104 (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

You are welcome! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC).

Hello Rich Farmbrough,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Kutcha house for deletion, because it seems to be a test. Did you know that the Wikipedia Sandbox is available for testing out edits?

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Answered on user's talk page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC).

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the HMS Triad (N53) page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Convoy JW 51B page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Svetlana Alliluyeva page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC).

Hey, Rich, you recently put up a graph showing the (increasing) level of female participation over time, I think on Jimbotalk. I need to scarf that for a thread at Wikipediocracy for somebody that has called me on my assertion that the gender gap is actually more like 80-20 than 90-10. Where might that graphic be located? Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:FM editor ratio over time en WP.png

Hi Is it worth trying to obtain contact details for the victim's family, to get their approval for the Wikipedia entry on Kylie? Given that, unlike some other famous cases, there is no Kylie Maybury Foundation or such founded by the family, they may value their privacy. Paul Austin (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they do value their privacy, and that's probably a good reason for not contacting them. If they requested it to be deleted or changed, and WP:Policy did not allow that, it might create distress for no reason. On the other hand were they to contact us, any request should be taken seriously.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC).

Please please don't revert me here. :-) - your last revert restored some content to a redirect, I think you and Fastily got that wrong. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This content was supposed to be merged. I have put it on the talk page of the target article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC).

Ah, thanks for the explanation and for sorting that. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

got your talk from you being the last to edit the autobiography filter i was pursuing the filter list and decided to look. i came across the new user check in the autobiography filter and it occurred to be that it checks if the user has edited 25 times or more. in this case it looks like all one needs to do is correct grammar 25 times and then they are able to make or edit an autobiography...

wouldn't removing the edit count be not only a good idea but also use one less unit? Qazwiz (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are able to edit anyway, that edit filter only warns and logs.

If we didn't have some limitation, it might cause eternal problems for a user called "Turtle" who edits turtle articles, or users with very short names.

It uses less compute time, because comparing numbers is very quick, and in most cases we are going to avoid a relatively slow text comparison.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC).

To remove yourself from this mailing list, remove your name from this list. 22:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Are the templates documented using {{ISO 3166 conversion template doc}} actually in use? There are an awful lot of them, they're gumming up my results for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:PrefixIndex&prefix=ISO&namespace=10, and they strike me as something of a maintenance nightmare in their current form. —SamB (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, looking for some rationale as to why you sliced out entire segments of the Black Lives Matter entry which had references? --Aliceba (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article had become too focussed on a very few people, rather than the national and international grass-roots movement. I plan to re-incorporate most of that material. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC).

You created this page but it appears you meant it to be User:Not so joyful. I have nominated it for deletion to clean up; over to you to re-welcome the user! RichardOSmith (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC).

Thank You MNBVCXZ (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yum! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

Hi Rich! Can you use welcoming template from my talkpage? Yours just don't have {{help me}} template wikified. Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like look on mine and now look at yours. See the difference?--Mishae (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

I've thought about it before, but just couldn't! Thanks! The world sometimes like to forget what it actually bought (in droves!) at one time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are surprising gaps in widely held, or "best-selling" coverage. Not having read this, I couldn't write much about it, but I imagine some of its many readers will fill in the article in time. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC).