→Wikileaks header: new section |
One Night In Hackney (talk | contribs) m →Why don't you?: sp |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
[[Talk:WikiLeaks#Header_Title|Comment?]] [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]] ([[User talk:Ocaasi|talk]]) 23:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
[[Talk:WikiLeaks#Header_Title|Comment?]] [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]] ([[User talk:Ocaasi|talk]]) 23:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
==Why don't you?== |
|||
Reply at [[Talk:Peter T. King#Various edits reverted]], something you've failed to do to date? Oh, I strongly suggest you do not attack or question the motives or myself and/or other editors again. <font face="Celtic">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">2 lines of K</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''</sub></font> 13:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:30, 22 December 2010
Assange
You are established enough not to need a template but; do not add poorly sourced attack material about living persons into articles. WHat you added was pointed and highly partisan. The accuser's political affiliation is irrelevant to the matter. Do not add it back; consider this an only warning level note. --Errant (chat!) 13:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Huh? What's wrong with the Miami Herald that was given as a source [1]? You may argue the weight, but the place for such a content dispute is on the article talk page, and a BLP warning is entirely inappropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's attacking the woman based on vague online sources (admitted in the source) and so fails WP:RS. The content was added with a subheading designed to draw overt attention to a minor part of the narrative. The editor was told not to add the content and so at least should have realised a discussion had to take place. So, yes. This is a BLP issue and a warning is appropriate. --Errant (chat!) 14:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Um, no. The Herald (not exactly the NYT, but a reasonable and serious newspaper) states the basic facts in the editorial voice. It also reports on them being posted online. The waring was entirely inappropriate. If the content should go in can be debated. But it must not be bullied out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but we must agree to disagree; the source fails WP:RS mostly for being a poor tabloid attack piece. The aim of the content added was to disparage and undermine; hence a BLP concern worth warning. I'd also strongly advise you to avoid throwing around silly accusations of bullying out content. It's bad rhetoric. (page is off my Watchlist, Mr.grantevans2 if you wish more help/comment then drop me a note) --Errant (chat!) 14:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Um, no. The Herald (not exactly the NYT, but a reasonable and serious newspaper) states the basic facts in the editorial voice. It also reports on them being posted online. The waring was entirely inappropriate. If the content should go in can be debated. But it must not be bullied out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's attacking the woman based on vague online sources (admitted in the source) and so fails WP:RS. The content was added with a subheading designed to draw overt attention to a minor part of the narrative. The editor was told not to add the content and so at least should have realised a discussion had to take place. So, yes. This is a BLP issue and a warning is appropriate. --Errant (chat!) 14:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
bloat
I would prefer it if you didn't repeatedly stuff in such promotional fluff, I have a thread on the talkpage, you were welcome to seek support for your desired addition there, thanks. Its his life story, not that john and harry support his wikileaks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Your getting a bit disruptive now, you shouldn't have done that, didn't you join in the discussion at the WP:BLPN please attempt to edit in a WP:NPOV way even if you support mr assange, that like is a redirect straight back to the artcile. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
What part of the consensus and discussion didn't you understand here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Assange_sex_charges_and_trial - the content at the link has been deleted and it is a simple redirect back to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
ok, I wasn't watching the BLP noticeboards. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- You are too busy attempting to portray mr assange in as good a light as possible that you can't see anything else. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- ) Naw, I really do try to promote NPOV in the article edits I do, I really do. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please, do you think I am blind and stupid. It makes me sick when people try to use wikipedia as a mouthpiece for their POV, get a blog why don't you. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- The only way you could be right about this is if you know what's going on inside my head and I don't know. One of the biggest problems in life is the assumptions and judgments people make about other people. When its about someone you know personally, it can be heartbreaking and permanent when you're wrong, e.g. Othello; when its about someone you ran into a week ago on Wikipedia, the consequences of being wrong are zero; but here's the rub; the brain is a computer, the way you judge the people and their motives whom you meet online is programming you to apply the same approach to judge the people and their motives in your offline life. Now, if you really care about or want to know what my pov is, all you have to do is ask. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please, do you think I am blind and stupid. It makes me sick when people try to use wikipedia as a mouthpiece for their POV, get a blog why don't you. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- ) Naw, I really do try to promote NPOV in the article edits I do, I really do. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Multi-threading: "more classified than unclassified"
I'll be concise: Please don't copy/paste text in multiple forums. Better to paste it in one place and paste a link to the discussion in the other places. The reason is that if the whole text is in threee places, threee seperate discussion start. Thanks you, brenneman 04:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
discussion and consensus
Hi, can you attempt to seek consensus on the talkpage, the repeated insertions and reverts is going to result in the full protection and locking of the article which I am sure you don't want, neither do I, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- You're right. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Respect, I see you presenting there, there are a few experienced neutral editors there and I am sure they will accept anything worthwhile, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replacing material
Hi, I am removing the material as it is an unconfirmed claim from assanga against living people in the court case coming up, please stop replacing it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikileaks header
Comment? Ocaasi (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you?
Reply at Talk:Peter T. King#Various edits reverted, something you've failed to do to date? Oh, I strongly suggest you do not attack or question the motives or myself and/or other editors again. 2 lines of K303 13:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)