[1] Well that's just silly. How is this sort of thing supposed to burnish your (ostensible) credentials as a "strong defender of BLP" & whatnot? Really, where does this come from? The Daily Mail is trash, and anyone who says otherwise shouldn't be working on BLPs, Sometimes we come up against the limits of mindless whimpering of"BLP". As any reasonable reading of the material in question shows, this is one of those times, Oh dearie -- no, you have misunderstood. BLP is not mindless whimpering. The source of the mindless whimpering is to be found elsewhere, not in the BLP policy itself. I suspect other editors will understand more readily. ,

− [2]What I find more and more frustrating is the simple inaccuracy of Collect's statements in situations like this. Collect says I forgot to add Rogers' statements -- but this edit shows as clear as day that I included something Rogers said about it. Previous inaccuracies are noted above. , More inaccuracies: not "ads", but instead a sports show, and he said nothing about not being a "sports tout" (source). It's pretty hard to work with you when there's a continual stream of half-true statements,

− − [3] At least w/rt Trump, Collect's concern appears to be that readers are able to learn that Donald Trump lives in Trump Tower, If he refers to himself as a Jew, then it doesn't matter if he prays to Jesus and all the saints -- per BLPCAT we can (and in my view should) indicate in the infobox that he's a Jew, Ah -- so you are applying a double standard -- it's just that you think you have good reasons to do so. Got it. ,

− − [4] There is nothing at all out of line. I specifically did not say "Off2riorob is an anti-Semite". I said that believing that someone has to be protected from being called a Jew is to hold the view that being a Jew is somehow a problem and "verges on anti-Semitism". If one is not allowed to make that kind of observation on Wikipedia then this place has real problems., You haven't shown any awareness that there is a problem in your attitude, and frankly I was thinking of starting a thread on AN/I myself about it. You have clearly implied that there is something wrong with referring to someone as a Jew. There isn't, and it isn't something to protect someone from. If you don't get that, then there's a problem,

− [5] Contributors to discussions of this sort really ought to indicate whether they have been involved at the article (my "contribution" was a revert of a blatant copyright violation), I do hope it's noticed that only there are only four editors contributing to this discussion who haven't been involved in the article. (I've made my own involvement clear, as have a couple of others -- but some haven't been as open about it.) ,

− − − And an all-time favourite: BLP defender my ass… from this very user talk page.

− − − Lagniappe (from Rick Santorum which mentions the "Catholic" twenty-two times in the body of the BLP, and where an editor found me not giving a "cite" for using the term "Catholic"

− :a previous edit has left this section without references

− Although most folks would say adding one more reference to "Catholic" would be a trifle silly. The church membership is cited in the infobox, mentioned in the lead, cited as attending Catholic schools, cited as speaking to Catholic leaders, and has a lengthy section devoted to "religious faith" which - for most people - would be sufficient to support a claim that he is a Catholic. But not, apparently, everyone would find this level sufficient <g>.

− − And apparently that person avers please provide a ref for the specific claim per WP:BLP (and perhaps also fix the sentence…

− − So I did the honourable thing -- [6] shows how to handle such editors. Collect (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

− − − And guess his response? [7] removing the citations he had specifically demanded, and then asserting Rv WP:OR -- a very surprising BLP violation by this editor... .

− − − And yes - there's more!

− :Collect's synthesis was obvious: S is a Catholic (reference), Catholics generally oppose euthanasia (reference), therefore S opposes euthanasia (no reference). "Culture of life" when S hasn't said in his own words that that term includes opposition to euthanasia does not mean there is a reference for his opposition to euthanasia. It is ridiculous that this apparently needs explaining.

− :Collect, if you actually fail to see how this was WP:SYNTH, there might be difficulties for you in the future -- because if you add more material along these lines in the future I will propose at AN that you be topic-banned from BLPs. This is the second time in less than a month that you have been persistent in failing to conform to BLP (the other was that unsubstantiated allegation on BLPN that you refused to redact). Once again, the problem here is that there was no source for the assertion that Santorum opposes euthanasia. I think it's unlikely that you don't understand this and are simply being obstinate, but if I am wrong and you don't understand -- and then repeat the behaviour -- I'll take it as a sign of a larger problem [8]

− − Showing a specific and ongoing attempt to harass and attack editors.

− :As indicated elsewhere, I am seriously concerned about your ability to edit BLPs appropriately. Your view appears to be that since Santorum is a Catholic (something established by sources) he therefore must believe in Church teachings e.g. about euthanasia and there's no need for a specific source about his opposition to euthanasia. This is of course inappropriate. Reflect if you will on the data regarding the number of Catholics who use condoms and other forms of birth control, or attitudes about whether priests should be able to get married. It does appear to the the case that there is a source regarding his opposition to euthanasia -- but your view that one isn't actually needed is wildly off base. [9]

− − [10]

− − ::I really don't get this use of "allegation" in connection with being gay. "Allegation" is used mostly in reference to committing a crime; the distaste I'm experiencing about Collect's statements is exacerbated by the notion that there's something "contentious" here, as if there's something wrong (even criminal) about being gay. Unless there's some other way of making these points, I'm inclined to conclude they are crap. [11]

− − :***Collect, there is a serious communication problem in your post. I said "no evidence that there is a lower level of fact checking." You read me as saying "entertainment 'news' is as fact-checked as all other news." You also quote yourself inaccurately, asserting that your original post contained the statement "news found in a section on entertainment in a general news section of a reliable source" when it fact it did not contain that statement. Your inaccuracy in reading is a serious deficiency and makes discussion very difficult.

− :Thanks for not even bothering to try responding to the first point. It's surely better that way.[12]

− :Just learn how to read properly, okay? You ascribed to me an "assertion" that I did not assert. If you don't want to end up with distractions like this, then just get it right. [13]

− ::Except that people have disputes about BLPs all the time where those with opposing views marshal BLP vs NPOV. A puzzling comment, offered with such force…[14]

− ::A mindless claim of "needs stronger sourcing" for an assertion where there four academic sources are already provided is absurd on its face. There is no assertion of complicity by any living person -- given that the Armenian genocide took place almost 100 years ago. So BLP in regard to that specific claim does not come into it. Even if it did, there is no evident reason whatsoever to think that the sources provided do not amply meet WP:RS. [15]

− :Are you suggesting Rob was unaware that he was edit-warring? I held off when it was only 4 reverts -- but by the time it's 5 it's not plausible that his "finger slipped". Oh, and the "BLP issues" is a canard (look it up). [16]

− :The nature of the "fifth revert" is worth noting closely. Removing a duplicate ref (an edit which is not in the least contentious in the current activity on this article) is not a revert. [17] (defending an ally)

− ::Removing it once was arguably reasonable. Doing it 4 times was an unequivocal violation of 3RR[18] (dealing with a foe)

− :The edit which put Collect in violation of 3RR changed "labelled" to "called". A large number of editors work on the Rubio BLP, and it was entirely unnecessary for Collect to edit-war on this particular issue: if it is a BLP problem, then other editors can take care of it -- and if it's only Collect who feels this way then consensus is against him. The inclination to edit-war in circumstances like this needs to be controlled, and since Collect can't seem to control it himself… [19] (when dealing with a "foe")

− :Agree with that latter point entirely. As for "strong sourcing" -- Collect has gone off the rails here with the implication that only an authorized biography would be usable for something like this. That view gives disproportionate influence to the subjects of biographies and is thus inconsistent with NPOV. A good biography is not to be rejected simply for being unauthorized; if anything, it's the authorized ones that deserve some skepticism. As for how to move forward, especially in relation to the claim that there is only one source: have a closer look at the references in the bibliography of the biography, to determine whether the issues in question were discussed by Marr on the basis of multiple sources, and if so use those[20] (background: an editor is proposing that 'Jonestown: The Power and the Myth of Alan Jones' (Allen & Unwin), is an unauthorised biography of Jones by Australian journalist Chris Masters. Extracts of the book published in The Sydney Morning Herald concentrated largely on Jones's sexuality, his questionable behaviour while Senior English Master at The King's School and an alleged "cottaging" incident in a London public toilet. The book claims that Jones is a homosexual and that his denial of this is "a defining feature of the Jones persona be used in a BLP. I would note the "source" was not deemed usable for the claims made, which rankled an editor greatly.

− :The source I used in my edit to Marco Rubio contains the sentence: "Then-state House Speaker Rubio was on the side of creationists." It is then a mystery to me how someone can conclude that the source doesn't mention anything about Rubio taking the side of the creationists. Perhaps it's better to read the source in question before commenting on it. (where he sought to label Rubio a "creationist" in a BLP) [21] shows an edit saying Runio is both "Christian" and "Roman Catholic" of all things. [22] has him asserting that using TalkingPoints memo is using Yahoo News since Yahoo News links to TalkingPointsMemo, and thus the fact that Yahoo News is RS is sufficient for claims of "fact" about living persons <g>. [23] he manages to aver he has no idea what TalkingPointsMemo is.

− − ===scratchpad3===

− − [24] represented a BLP which was in clear violation if policy and noted as such by the WMF. I cleaned it up and got You removed perfectly reasonable sourced material. I have reverted this as response. I left it [25].

− − [26] shows an interesting version of "collegiality" Collect is assiduously ignoring a source suggested for him on the article talk page: [27]. This post here is a complete waste of time.. Amazingly enough, salon.com is not a great source for contentious claims about living persons to this day. But [You still haven't clicked on this link, have you? ] he appears to believe that repeating a bad source a dozen times turns it into a silk purse.

− − Perhaps anyone born in Texas, NM, AZ, etc. should be indicated as having been born in Mexico. Illegitimate spoils of war, & all. In other words, stupid dispute. [28] shows an interesting debating style, to say the least.

− − [29] Unfortunately, that's what "BLP" sometimes means around here: with SPS, the "encyclopaedia" article about Rader can be half sourced to his own website, but a sensible and pertinent observation by a well-qualified expert can be excluded. Any measure of common sense tells us that this is absurd, serving no purpose whatsoever. shows a rather interesting view about WP:BLP and WP:RS, but to him any source he agrees with is RS, and any he disagrees with is not notable.

− − [30] has the interesting opinions:

− :They're not opinion articles. They're investigative journalism. This has been explained to you in the other venues to which you have brought this issue. (In other words, have a look at WP:FORUMSHOPPING.)

− :Individual sources do not have to be "neutral"; in fact there's a reasonable argument that no source is ever neutral. Neutrality is important at the level of Wikipedia articles, per NPOV -- our articles should reflect the presentation of a topic in existing sources, which have different points of view. Simply put, "reliable" does not equate to "neutral". As for your dismissal of investigative journalism (on the basis of "cutting ethical corners", no less), I'd be surprised to learn that this is a widely held view here

− Last I looked, articles which are admittedly far from neutral so, indeed, qualify as "opinion pieces" (One was "Mormon country is rife with miracle-cure peddlers whose get-rich-quick schemes have boomed in the recession. One of the biggest beneficiaries of their campaign largesse? Mitt Romney" which appears an eensy bot less than subtle, for example)

− − [31] shows politesse in not even dealing with the query posed but simply attacking:

− :Collect has posted here requesting feedback on his query. It's apparent that he doesn't like the feedback he has received and will continue to dispute with people who take the view he dislikes no matter how many they are. I'm not sure there's much point in carrying on with this.

− − I do find it intriguing that the journal webpage doesn't contain the assertion that the journal is peer-reviewed. It's also instructive to look at an actual article: this doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that would be the result of peer review. At best, these things are probably best considered equivalent to op-eds -- thus perhaps useful for noting the opinions of the authors, but not for statements of fact is how he depicts a peer-reviewed journal published by Springer, listed as such by reliable sources. Clearly again "peer-reviewed" is doubted by him , thus making a source he does not like into being unusable, even when reliable sources clearly state the journal is peer-reviewed. His parting shot: But whether it's peer reviewed does make a big difference in how *we* can use it. It's obvious to me that their articles are extended opinion pieces. If that's wrong -- if it can be shown that there is in fact a process of peer review -- then we wouldn't to treat it as a source that merely offers people a platform for expressing opinions -- that is,he concedes it is peer-reviewed, but we can not use it because he does not like its opinions! Talk about consistency!

− − :Re "allegations": it is not a crime to be gay (at least not in the USA), so allegations is the wrong word (and betrays an unsavoury POV, in my view). I suggest having this conversation in a more neutral way. where the "source" is a film specifically seeking to "Out" people who are not openly gay or who may not be gay at all. [32] "Outing" is in fact a specific category of forbidden acts on Wikipedia.

− − [33] has the editor opposing John's redaction of "fucking" from the article, and saying we should use the full quotes. I think the sources have been reviewed pretty thoroughly (above). Is there a specific concern regarding use of a specific source? , The incident clearly involved a threat by Grimm against Scotto -- not least insofar as multiple good sources described it as such. I also note that a good deal of space is given to Grimm's own words responding to criticism of his actions -- and so it's reasonable also to quote what he said in the first instance,

− − [34] has the edit summary: it's a laughingstock, a non-existent institution)

− − [35] shows more missed congeniality excuse me but piss off: I haven't edited the article ever. On what grounds do you say I have committed a BLP violation?

− − [36] and yet another clear personal attack (as though there were not more to come) The Guardian has him unequivocally naked. Collect will no doubt find another way to dissemble and condescend to the rest of us even in the face of a perfectly straightforward claim in a perfectly reliable source. But sensible editors will read it for what it is

− − [37] shows real depth Quoting policies usually isn't necessary, especially when it's possible simply to link to them. The question is how to apply them. Quoting them doesn't really take things very far.

− − − [38] Well then you have no difficulties whatsoever: he is reported as saying "I am [gay. Very proud to be so"]. No doubt you'll find some other reason to object, but it's not "allegation" at all, it's self-identification as direct as anyone could reasonably want I would note here that the "source" was found severely wanting in the case at hand. Closer noted: All the "reliable" stories directly mention gossip-boy which is clearly not an RS for WP:BLP info like this.

− − − ==Scratchpad 4==

− − [39] contains material concerning the willingness of an editor to categorize people on the subject of "Jewishmess" where the person does not so self-identify at all.

− − [40] I am one of the SPA accounts (I gather it is important to be up-front about that). My opinion probably won't count for much, but I will offer a bit of data for your consideration, in relation to notability: a search for "Oxford Round Table" on Nexis produces 147 hits in the category of newspaper articles. Entirely normal newspapers, such as the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Cleveland Plain Dealer That SPA still edits the article [41] being only the latest edit, but showing an ongoing interest in a single article and POV. [42] etc. as well. This article was the subject of a great deal of contention several years ago and each piece has been extensively vetted -- so I doubt you'll find support for removing significant portions. Also, WP:NPOV does not mean (as you appear to think) that an article cannot include criticism (i.e., when that criticism is supported by reliable sources). is a simple assertion that "we decided this and decisions can not change". The talk page archives are rife with an editor making fairly pointed comments about the topic.

− − [43] An editor dislikes a close, so attacks the closer:

− :Here is the diff that initiated the RfC: link. The role of a closing admin would be to determine consensus on that question. To go beyond that question and decree that the term should be removed from the entire article -- and to threaten blocks if it is included -- is to use one's admin status to dictate content.

− An admin wrote Specifically, you need to be aware that "The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns." making clear that an editor's seeming indifference to WP:BLP must be overridden by any admin.

− − [44] removed a talk page comment of mine [91] (on Talk:Outrage (2009 film) on grounds of WP:POINT (I also reject the idea that the post violated POINT -- WTF??). I restored it, noting that POINT is not grounds for removing someone's comment per WP:TPO. xxx has removed it again and threatened me with a block via a notice on my talk page. I'd like a review of these actions, please. To determine whether it was a BLP violation, please review this section of Larry Craig scandal (and also please be aware of WP:WELLKNOWN). My view is that xxx simply found my talk page post uncomfortable (he took it as a "personal attack") and is grossly overreacting. Thank you. An admin replied noting: was right in removing that contentious BLP violation'. Also note an admin wrote ##I want to make an important note that admins (especially male admins) are discouraged from managing discussions about homosexual topics because they can be attacked personally, and even sexually harassed. Here's a comment where (an editor)attacked my sexual identity: I must have struck a nerve of some sort… . It's not right to say something like that to any editor, ever. The editor seems to routinely attack all and sundry who actually try to follow WP:BLP no matter who they may be.

− − Indeed it should -- but not by someone who believes it is "racist" to identify oneself as a British Jew. When we then get "As Miliband is a Jew his comments about Israel seem to be quite important" what we have is a troll, not an editor trying to improve the encyclopedia appears to be attack for the sheer joy of attacking. [45]

− − [46] is really neat

− :Per WP:PREFER, WP:BLPREMOVE and BLP in general, the material should come out until there is consensus for adding it properly (an unlikely prospect where an editor argues for removal of material he does not approve of. Unless there is evidence that Goldblum is in fact a PLO supporter, we should not be repeating the accusation that he is a PLO supporter; in the Israeli context, that accusation (particularly if false) would be quite harmful to someone's reputation and should therefore be considered defamatory is his argument here -- which is the direct opposite of his position concerning living persons he disfavours. I hold the same standards for all persons - mobsters to saints.

− − On civility: Failing to sanction editors who engage personal attacks because (e.g.) "Andy is right" is a path towards altering WP:NPA so that it means "it's okay to attack someone as long as you think you're right". Is that where we're headed here? [47] is nicely onpoint for a personwho makes as many personal attacks as an editor makes. Does that imply that if he doesn't "drop the stick" Andy can continue to call him a repulsive lying bigot?

− − Article in question: Bush Derangement Syndrome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|views). Question: is it okay for people !voting delete to gut the article while an AfD is in progress? I'm not asking for anyone to be sanctioned or reprimanded. But it seems at least potentially like an inappropriate tactic designed to slant the AfD: someone looking at the article in its current state might think, hmm not many references there, only a brief paragraph or two, doesn't look all that notable, think I'll !vote delete. The editors doing the deletion of text no doubt think their editing is proper -- but there is room for good faith disagreement on that, and it just seems wrong to have an article chopped down like that (with a whole host of references removed) during an AfD [48]

− So I looked at the edit history for that article and found [49] where an editor thought it wise to add Palin Derangement Syndrome to the problematic article. I suspect BLP is a foreign term to some editors. Apart from that, one might question the premise that it is a neologism; perhaps it's a real syndrome, in which case there's no question about WP:GNG here at the last AfD [50]

− − Even if other sources don't call him a suspect, we should not say anything that even implies he is guilty of a crime unless/until he is convicted. shows a sense of BLP [51] for someone he likes. His reasoning says we should not even imply a person is a suspect even where a confession has been widely reported. NYB wisely noted Nonetheless, the matter need not be taken to ridiculous extremes. It is not possible to report the events surrounding the Boston bombing without saying "anything that even implies [that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev] is guilty of a crime." While we certainly need to report that he has only been indicted and has not yet been convicted of anything, under the circumstances I will not lose sleep if our article on him does not reprint the words "innocent until proven guilty" in each and every sentence . My clear position in the same discussion was I do not think I am looked at as lax about BLP, but the source stating that Dz admitted or confessed to the acts is certainly usable in Wikipedia. Wikipedia, however, can not state he committed those acts in Wikipedia's voice per BLP by which I stand.

− − YMMV, as some like to say. In other words, SPADFY was a comment made to me at [52]. The editor never did explain that acronym. Is it polite?

− − [53] There are a couple of editors bent on smearing the subject of this BLP with accusations of anti-semitism. I have twice removed a sentence based on a "working paper", noting that a working paper by definition is not "published" and fails WP:RS, particularly as used for support of highly contentious material in a WP:BLP. WP:BLPDEL requires that material deleted on such grounds cannot be restored until there is consensus, and it is nonetheless being restored. I'd be grateful for some admin input here. The current article [54] still has the charges, by the way, so the fight to remove one reference did not have the salubrious effect he wished here.

− − [55] an editor attacks an admin Yes -- here's a comment: if you can identify any of those web results as satisfying WP:RS, then go ahead and use them. Otherwise you have no business restoring poorly sourced material and using admin tools to protect the version you appear to favor. The admin in this case appears to have made the right call looking at the current article, by the way.

− − the schtick is old and the drama is counterproductive. Cut it off at the knees where he seeks strong sanctions against an established editor [56]

− − − Re: civility in discourse: In the country where I live, the newspapers are full of the words "fuck", "cunt", and the like. This is normal here. Perhaps I'm right in assuming that Anthony lives in the USA? The point would then be that it's inappropriate to try to impose (through edit-warring, no less) American standards of public discourse . [57]

− − − How could anyone possibly form a view as to whether you have behaved inappropriately or abused checkuser rights? No-one knows why you have done what you have done confronts in a rather accusatory tone a Checkuser who is now a bureaucrat. [58]

− − Is that it -- you want him blocked for expressing an opinion? for a "friend". [59] The material suggests that there had been substantial reason for the block, and this was a tentative unblock discussion at most.

− − − ===scratchpad 5 ===

− What a difference a month makes ...

− − [60] So do y'all think that the editor is not a sock?? That would be a tad ridiculous, no?

− − [61] But darling I did read what you wrote -- "use of BLPs for campaign purposes", right after "music preferences" and following a revert by you on Rubio re Tupak Shakur

− − Fewer edits -- same old (attitudes).

− − [62] No, you misunderstand -- it's apparent that you'd like it in the lead because he's a Democrat.

− − [63] So wait, you're hoping to add "notorious superglue critic A A Gill"? I'm confused. AFAICT

− − − ====SP part N====

− [64] Then this small group of editors are vilified for their efforts (see, for example, Collect's evidence). I would welcome attempts to brainstorm more effective ways of dealing with this issue accusing me of "vilifying editors"

− − :There's nothing wrong with "editing similar articles" or "having similar areas of interest" with other users. Collect specifically used these "data" (and yes, they deserve the scare quotes, as outlined below) to imply inappropriate coordinated editing. Having looked at Collect's evidence and formed your own view of it, do you agree with that implication?

−

− [65]

− :As usual I am left to wonder why you're working so hard to obscure the source's content

− − :and it's particularly disingenuous to imply, as Collect does, that NRA cash is equally distributed by party when reliable sources take pains to make clear that the opposite is true as I made no such comment, I fear the editor is errant

− − − [66]

− :This is the usual time-wasting nonsense from this editor. One might get the impression that the portion of the article in question relies on Buzzfeed as a source. In fact Buzzfeed isn't used as a source in this article at all. Collect, why are you moaning about Buzzfeed? Anyone can see that the quotation is sourced not to Buzzfeed but to the Guardian.

− Which forgets the following from BuzzFeed (as mentioned before)

− :Florida State suspended quarterback Jameis Winston for half of FSU’s upcoming game against Clemson after he stood on a table and screamed “fuck her right in the pussy,” TMZ reported. from Buzzfeed,as advertised.

− No major reputable US source stresses the expletive. None. One more example of an editor seeking the tabloidification of Wikipedia.

− − [67]

− :Hmm. It's surely not a vocabulary issue. It might be the ridiculously stilted sentence construction, the grammatical errors, the quotes that aren't actually quotes, etc. Even so, I for one have no objection if you want to carry on writing in this fashion.

− Unfortunately for the commenter, the sentences pass all the grammar checking tests out there. I wonder what, precisely, the commenter is parsing?

− − [68]

− :You are therefore on very thin ice in your attempt to remove the contested text. Did you think no-one would notice the extremely poor fit between your question here and the edit you have been trying (and, thankfully, failing) to make? Your actions are in direct contravention of the way the RfC was closed, and I suggest you not make any attempt to repeat this in the future.

− as a response to a properly posed query at BLP/N about the requirement for a positive consensus for inclusion of contested material.

− − [69]

− :Any guesses on what's likely to happen if you continue to remove it?

− one more personal response from an editor who seems to follow me around to an extraordinary extent bordering on an unhealthy pre-occupation with me.

− − [70] Having noted the opinion nature of both pieces, it makes no sense to say that one is usable and the other isn't. I'd almost guess that you agree with one opinion but not with the other... where the topic is one of total disinterest to me, but one person is an expert in the field, thus has notable opinions, and the other person has absolutely no qualifications in the field at all, thus has totally non-notable opinions. We can use opinions from notable people, we do not use opinions from people who may have absolutely no value for opinions on a topic.

− − [71] I'm guessing that when the full protection ends you'll quickly begin repeating the same edits you were making before. The fact that this might not be a good idea probably won't give you pause, will it...

− − [72] asked which sources dispute the characterization. Failing to say anything about the characterization is not disputing the characterisation. You said that all the sources you provided dispute the characterisation. It's now quite evident that this statement was untrue. which is a nice way of saying that he wants that editor to "prove a negative"

− − [73] Any thoughts on how you'd react if I posted this kind of shit on your talk page? I mean, hey, take the rope, I don't really care -- I like popcorn too. showing great respect for all other editors

− − [74] Name-calling"?? I don't see any name-calling in XXX's post. What is the name you have been called?? If anything, I think we now have further evidence of difficulty with reading comprehension (the post he referred to said There is no evidence in this thread that you've actually read or digested what anyone else has said. That makes further discussion frustrating and unproductive. I don't think you're in a position to lecture anyone about how to advance discussion; your refusal to listen to others is the main impediment. which I regard as an uncollegial turd)

− − [75] But what is the name you were called?? seems to be written as more dicta excreta.

− − :::Earlier: Sandstein is grossly mistaken in believing that it is a "personal attack" (and therefore prohibited) to observe that another editor is incompetent or even grossly incompetent. Some editors are indeed incompetent and cause no end of trouble at Wikipedia 12:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC) where he demurred that calling editors "incompetent" is an attack.

− :::I'd like admins to consider this post on the user-talk page of רסטיניאק. It would have been reasonable for Nataev to make a polite request along these lines, but the message as a whole is an unwarranted attack and (imo) another breach of the topic ban 06:19, 23 May 2013 where the attack consisted entirely of "Listen, don't tag me in you posts, OK? I don't give a FUCK about you. Don't you get it? " which seems less of an attack than a simple use of impolite language at most. Several other examples of labile interpretation of what is an attack or not are apparent [76] shows a comment about a living person: Hehochman, do you really think it's (mere) "gossip" that Larry Craig enjoyed himself some gay sex? which was removed by Jehochman as WP:POINT resulting in the poster writing on J's UT page [77] WP:POINT is not grounds for removing others' comments, per WP:TPO. I must have struck a nerve of some sort which appeared to be a slam at J. [78] leading to an AN/I complaint of all things -- Nomo's comment was inappropriate, in tone if not in content. It certainly didn't contribute anything productive to the talk-page discussion, and worsened the already-suboptimal atmosphere there. Jehochman was within his rights to remove it, although ignoring it would have been equally appropriate (if harder to do). I don't understand the rationale for restoring an unhelpful and inflammatory comment after it's been removed. Ideally, we'd just leave the comment removed, and everyone would stand down. XXX Talk 16:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC) The AN/I complaint found J to have acted within reasonable discretion.

− − [79] Collect is suggesting that other editors engage in an obvious form of WP:OR. This is bizarre More personal snark, alas.

− − [80] "For our convenience" -- priceless...

− − [81] You have a ridiculous habit of trying to put absurd ideas into the mouths of other editors. My meaning is plain, even if not to you.

− − (to one of the top editors in Wikipedia history by count - over 450,000 edits)[82] "we comply with the subject's stated stance on views regardless of what others say. This has been done for religion, politics, gender, and ideology." -- if you are going to push the view that we should extend this principle (properly applied to religion, gender,etc.) to scientific and in particular medical topics, I will propose a topic ban to apply to you in this regard. Re-read WP:PSCI and try to understand why this approach cannot be accepted at Wikipedia.

− − [83] There's no need for "strongly and specifically sourced" -- a requirement of that sort is already well embedded in our general policies. Editors' views on whether the term is "pejorative" have no bearing, and there's no ground whatsoever for a "self-identification" or "disavowal" angle here -- what matters is what reliable sources tell us. (the term which he feels does not need strong sourcing is "anti-vaccination activist" which is used for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. among others)

− − ==a user who might be following me (I edited each page prior to his or her appearance)==

− − [84] :To quote you: "Forumshopping requires accurate statements of the issue - when you mislead others, you cease being in "good faith" territory." Might it be that there is some misleading here as well?-

− − [85] Again, my words stand on their own. I never claimed that WinShape was anti-gay, nor did I claim they aren't. Cathy connected himself to the anti-gay groups via his donations. Family Research Council for example is so vehemently anti-gay that they are regarded as a hate group by one the leading civil rights organizations in the United States. Were you really not aware of this?-

− − [86] No it's not, but you're welcome to raise your concern at WP:BLP/N if you think that organizations that specifically oppose equal rights for LGBT people can't be described as anti-gay.

− − [87] Socially conservative Christian" is not neutral. It implies that that these groups occupy the moral high-ground. I would, however, not be opposed to "socially conservative groups that oppose equality for LGBT people".

− − [88] I would think the connection would be obvious. These organization's rely almost entirely on the notion that their Christian morality should influence society and culture. Calling these organizations Christian implies that LGBT people are not Christian or are not moral. It's easy to see that these organization specifically oppose all that is LGBT, as opposed to promoting actual Christian values of love, charity, forgiveness, love, renunciation of worldly goods, and fidelity in marriage. -

− − [89] I don't see a problem here. 'Adhere' may not be the best word, but it is clear that the fact that (according to the source and supported by the quote) he has appropriated/acquired/embraced/espoused/adopted/championed this type of identity politics is not really contestable. (note that the BLP does not contain the contested claim - as the author is an expert in satire)