Off2riorob (talk | contribs) Reverted to revision 342523244 by GoodDay; remove messy additions to talk. (TW) |
→Suggestion: Addd comment |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
Just ignore editors who use foul-language on public talkpages, ''if'' they ignore your request to stop. Less dramatic that way & sometimes gets your request accepted quicker. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
Just ignore editors who use foul-language on public talkpages, ''if'' they ignore your request to stop. Less dramatic that way & sometimes gets your request accepted quicker. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
==Suggestion== |
|||
I strongly suggest you seek another opinion. You initially did not wish to accept the new information, and then when I presented examples in other articles conceded the point. |
|||
You then rewrote the information, but unfortunately it was poorly worded and did not focus on the relevant detail. Throughout you have also made allegations of "coatracking" but have failed to provided an explanation for this (is this a Wiki term?) and from what I can see have taken [[WP:OWN|ownership]] of the article. |
|||
Please note the information meets all three of these criteria: |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]] (NPOV) |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]] |
|||
and was submitted in ''good faith''. Note that Wikipedia's principle of "Assuming Good Faith" (often abbreviated AGF), which has been a stated guideline since 2005 has been described as "the first principle in the Wikipedia etiquette". ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith]) |
|||
Finally, you have made a rather emotive and completely unnecessary claim that I will be blocked over the simple fact that one editor - yourself - disagrees. I have made every effort to explain the situation to you on the Talk Page. I suggest you try and contact another party for comment rather than issuing ultimatums. |
|||
[[User:Asgardian|Asgardian]] ([[User talk:Asgardian|talk]]) 00:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: You need to get some perspective. A look at your Edit Summary shows you have a habit of "talking down" to other editors and your comments would seem to be - as they are here - very condescending. You also completely ignored my advice and haven't responded to any of my points. You also reinserted weak and colloquial language without any attempt at a compromise, despite my doing so. Once again, it is also not for you to be issuing ultimatums. If you are an administrator, you can't lock articles or block over issues you yourself are involved in - that's a major faux pas. |
|||
Please, study the statement and think it through. [[User:Asgardian|Asgardian]] ([[User talk:Asgardian|talk]]) 00:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:36, 9 February 2010
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
-
The BLP Barnstar
In recognition of your work and vigilance at the WP:BLP/N noticeboard. I can remember times when BLP/N seemed to have tumbleweeds blowing through it ... it is good to see BLP issues in biographies resolved and addressed, regardless of how famous or popular the subject is. Thank you.JN466 15:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC) -
The Anti-Flame Barnstar
For taking the time to care to help cool me down when I was acting like a ^;^ d**k Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
|
|
(Manual archive list) |
Holy Sh*t
[[1]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
How does it go, ride, boldly ride, if you seek for El dorado. Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Eldorado
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight
In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, 'In search of Eldorado.
But he grew old- This knight so bold- And o'er his heart a shadow Fell as he found No spot of ground That looked like Eldorado.
And, as his strength Failed him at length, He met a pilgrim shadow- "Shadow," said he, "Where can it be- This land of Eldorado?"
"Over the Mountains Of the Moon, Down the Valley of the Shadow, Ride, boldly ride," The shade replied- "If you seek for Eldorado!"
Edgar Allan Poe
pimp that cadillac on 24's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.211.27.5 (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Blessings of cake and camaraderie ...
Free at last, amigo. Free at last. Cheers. Proofreader77 (interact) 06:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- No worries, what a night, groovy. Off2riorob (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Seeing as all of the talk has thus far been on my own talkpage. I just wished to thank you on your own talkpage for bringing my attention to the hoax issue. A very serious issue for wikipedia even though some editors may not have initially realised, including myself. I think I will re-add Arthur de Rothschild at some point soon because he was obviously notable and a good, if minor, addition to the project. But you were right in following the leads you had. Polargeo (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It was quite exciting, a fantastic hoax. I didn't Know Arthur got deleted in the mellee, he was at least real and quite a noted member of the family, lets get him replaced. Thanks to you for taking the time (and belief) to look deeper into it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Another significant Rothschild missing from Wikipedia is Maurice (c. 1881-1957), son of Edmond. He was a minor politician involved in a bribery scandal, considered a wastrel, and later in life made his own large fortune trading in commodities and stocks after he fled from Europe.Benf64 (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome, I guess. Kind of funny (pretending to be nobility, for the recognition and standing, is such a quaint mischief), kind of sad. Benf64 (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, if he put the energy into something real he would likely be doing very well. Off2riorob (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ben, you are very welcome to create the article, you seem to have good Knowledge in the field. Off2riorob (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Christo Re
Thank you for your Corcovado Christ. It's one of my favourites, with il Cristo Re de Bienno (Italy) a little one, overlooking the valley ...
--Raymondnivet (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- And thank you for the gunfight at the OK Corral. Hmmm ... Mice contrast with image. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 01:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
I think you deserve this for your tireless yet unpaid-for hard work, and impressive contributions over the years :) Regards Scieberking (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC) |
- Thanks Scieberking, you overstate my contributions but thank you for your thoughts, obsession might be a better description recently, regards to you too. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- 18694 edits is obviously something I don't see everywhere. I've been around barely two months though and I love giving barnstars. Regards Scieberking (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Graciously accepted. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. When you asked for a copy of this article in your user space, I did it by undeleting and moving the article. A consequence, which I hadn't thought about, is that the copy you have is the "master" in the sense that it has the history attached, and is the one which will need to be restored if she is elected at the end of March. I don't think that actually matters as long as we both remember it - I don't know why you wanted a copy, but remember that if you edit it those edits will be in the history of the restored version (though even that could be avoided with some manipulation).
If you would prefer, I could move it back to mainspace, delete it again, and give you a cut-and-paste copy; but I don't think that's necessary.
In closing the AfD, I said that I would undelete the article on request if she was elected. It appears that the election is to be on 20 March. It is likely that I shall be away then; if so, may I ask you to look after that? If you agree, and if I do go away, I will direct her supporters to you.
Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I only wanted it as I thought it worth an article and intended to improve it a bit and put it back, its here User:Off2riorob/Tammy_Jennings if anyone would want it, I am fine with it staying where it is and fine with it going elsewhere, I can happily look after its possible replacement to main space around election time or whenever more notability is asserted. No worries. Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Rothschild hoax
Change of subject: the real Rothschilds have acted swiftly. All Stefan's fake sites have been taken down, and he has been taken off the Huffington Post both as de Rothschild and as Roberts, and off Twitter. No wine yet, though. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- ...and he is now getting more internet publicity than perhaps even he wants. JohnCD (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, that is a development, perhaps the New York times will be commenting as they also had a two and a half million pledge to Haiti from the fictitious company Rothschild Estates in their paper, they were also scammed. Thank you for the updates, it is making me very thirsty though, that Rothschild wine would be greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Political candidates
Hi there. I noticed you participated in the Articles for Deletion discussion for Graham Jones (politician). I have started a discussion regarding a consensus position for candidates in legislative elections (by way of amending WP:POLITICIAN, in case you are interested in putting forward your views there. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes I will keep my eye on it and comment later. Off2riorob (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Wrong person your complaining at
I never added the slut face part that was someone else, i cant change a catergory name so you can do what you likeMiss-simworld (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it says here that you did. Off2riorob (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
i wrote katie price's albums on an already made template not slut face part. I do not like that woman but still its no point to write something like that. I added the catergory by clicking on the red part which listed her albums and ALREADY had that title, but I didnt write slutface part. The woman isnt very well liked so it doesnt suprise me.Miss-simworld (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it's been deleted anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it is amusing, glad you like it. Thanks for stepping in before I got annoyed. Off2riorob (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Gerald Blanchard Story
thanks for your help i'am the real Gerald Blanchard and the page is not correct I have written to Uk times to have them correct the story but no response. I have done a interview with wired mag they are printing a 13 page story that corrects the false stories out there I will be in March issue then it would be nice to help me use that as a reference to change the page as that one person keeps changing it back my email is ******* thanks for you help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Possltd (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, no worries, If I can help I will. Best wishes to you. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Dr Aafia Siddique Article
I added some important information to the article on Dr Aafia a few months back and I was viewing that article again today and I've noticed that it's gone and I can't find my entry through the history page ( I prob didn't sign in while making the edits). I posted information from an interview her ex husband gave, in which he talked about her fanatic tendencies and abusive nature, which got deleted promptly(article can be seen here http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=20404). I am sure her family/ friends deleted that information. The article in general is very biased. I am not very familiar with Wikipedia rules but what can be done about this biased article??SaraTahir —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC).
- The talkpage is a good place to ask. Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, I hope it's enough to remove the BLP and other notices (since it looks like it will probably survive AfD). I appreciate the source you provided! — Catherine\talk 20:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Stedman Pearson
This relates to the Pearson article you asked me about a couple of months back. Just a heads-up: Someone had brought up the article on RSN, and I realised the public indecency bit in that article was still a BLP violation. It just didn't say what the source said, implying there had been a criminal guilty plea and conviction when in fact there had been no conviction at all. I've taken it out and posted a rationale on the talk page. --JN466 20:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The BLP Barnstar | ||
For your effort in making biography articles adhere to high standards Sole Soul (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
- Thanks Soul, I think it is our biggest responsibility and I also enjoy it. Off2riorob (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar, I really appreciate it. Sole Soul (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Kelly Carrington
If you don't mind, what do you have against the Kelly Carrington article? Dismas|(talk) 14:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Try my way
Just ignore editors who use foul-language on public talkpages, if they ignore your request to stop. Less dramatic that way & sometimes gets your request accepted quicker. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion
I strongly suggest you seek another opinion. You initially did not wish to accept the new information, and then when I presented examples in other articles conceded the point.
You then rewrote the information, but unfortunately it was poorly worded and did not focus on the relevant detail. Throughout you have also made allegations of "coatracking" but have failed to provided an explanation for this (is this a Wiki term?) and from what I can see have taken ownership of the article.
Please note the information meets all three of these criteria:
and was submitted in good faith. Note that Wikipedia's principle of "Assuming Good Faith" (often abbreviated AGF), which has been a stated guideline since 2005 has been described as "the first principle in the Wikipedia etiquette". ([2])
Finally, you have made a rather emotive and completely unnecessary claim that I will be blocked over the simple fact that one editor - yourself - disagrees. I have made every effort to explain the situation to you on the Talk Page. I suggest you try and contact another party for comment rather than issuing ultimatums.
Asgardian (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- You need to get some perspective. A look at your Edit Summary shows you have a habit of "talking down" to other editors and your comments would seem to be - as they are here - very condescending. You also completely ignored my advice and haven't responded to any of my points. You also reinserted weak and colloquial language without any attempt at a compromise, despite my doing so. Once again, it is also not for you to be issuing ultimatums. If you are an administrator, you can't lock articles or block over issues you yourself are involved in - that's a major faux pas.
Please, study the statement and think it through. Asgardian (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)