Jump to content

User talk:Off2riorob

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shannon Rose (talk | contribs) at 13:26, 2 June 2010 (→Re: FYI BLPN: POV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Duck Test

Well, it could be a rabbit in disguise !
Hungry?... Have a pizza!

(Manual archive list)


Fancy dress

No idea. I asked the question and was just told it was "important". Sorry to say I think it is just a bit of naive, youthful hubris on the part of a couple of admins. you want to carry the weight of WP on their shoulders. Leaky Caldron 21:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was more crap on Ed Balls after you left. I just couldn't be bothered with him - but I suspect he may not be new. Leaky Caldron 21:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol, cross posted there!. I think it is better there. I just couldn't find enough policy against it, apart from Association fallacy. Leaky Caldron 21:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Jones (politician)

I have moved the text in your userspace to Graham Jones (politician), based on his victory in last night's election. Also, please see my comment on the talk page: what's the preferred way to refer to Jones and his cohort of newly-elected MPs, since they haven't taken their seats in Westminster yet? —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks C. Fred. I am not certain as they have not as you say, taken their seat,but he is at least describable as...the successful Labour party candidate for Hyndburn,in the 2010 general election. Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Stowe

The talk page WAS getting a TAD unwieldy, thanks for archiving it. However, I'm wondering if the ENTIRE discussion should have been archived? I am one of the minor editors of that article and have to concur with Regatta Dog in that the article has become really nothing more than a propaganda fluff-piece as well as a funnel to his/their website and conveniently located PayPal button. It seems that ALL positive material (of which there is PLENTY) posted by his "Mission Control" team and supporters, regardless of the source is allowed, while his brushes with the law (of which there are a few, but notable nonetheless) and ANYTHING which might diminish his remuneration via said PayPal button has been challenged/deleted. Seeing as how some of the sources which shed positive AS WELL as negative light are indeed one and the same, there is really no way to establish balance. Your input would certainly be appreciated. Regards Aloha27 (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The big mistake is to think that anyone is reading the article and clicking on the link and donating any money to any ones paypal account. A subject is allowed to have his website on an article and if there is a paypay button there, so what. The circular discussions on the talkpage has begun to be excesssive and had issues regarding BLP and privacy. Better simply start again and if you think some content is fluffy propaganda then discuss it on the talkpage. The article is harmless, as I said your original idea is wrong that that wikipedia article is having any affect on the financial situation of the subject. The article is getting about 20 views a day, half of them are the Mission Control team and a quarter are the wikipedian editors and the rest are crawler robots. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I probably did a lousy job here in attempting to make my point. I have no issue whatsoever that the article links to Stowe's website. What I believe is a real issue here is that the article itself suffers from extreme imbalance. I had NO idea that the article was getting so few hits, where the article is number one on the hit parade on Google. As I said, news stories which shed less than a favourable light on the man, regardless of how well documented or third-party sourced (New York Daily News for one) have been deleted while anything shedding a positive light from the very same source is treated as gospel. As a matter of fact, someone along the way had blacklisted www.sailinganarchy.com as a spam site. It, of course, is no such thing. It is quite simply the largest online sailing website on the planet and not a source of spam. Thank you for your input, It's back to the old drawing board. Take care and thanks again! Aloha27 (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turian's talk page

I understand your point, but please don't poke him while he's blocked. We can resolve if he's really retired or not later, when he's not blocked.

Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the note. Off2riorob (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

doing tagging of "BLP IMDB refimprove" and "BLP IMDB-only refimprove"

Hey, glad you asked. What i am doing is applying more correct tags now available, {{BLP IMDB refimprove}} and {{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}}, to articles that a) are currently tagged "BLP unreferenced" (which means there are no references / no sources, b) have at least an IMDB reference. You noticed my edit to a Reilly page where it was a correct edit, i believe. Your comment at my Talk page suggested that adding proper referencing to the article would be better, which I do agree with, but I am not working at doing that now. We are all volunteers, and we can't do everything. It happens i am specializing in correcting/improving the tagging to a lot of articles quickly, using AWB, not taking the time to do research and completely fix each one. Note other tags that might be relevant are {{nofootnotes}} or {{morefootnotes}}. Also, about IMDB, it is indeed a controversial source; there has been long debates previously about whether IMDB is reliable or not at all. My understanding is that it is reliable enough for screen credits, but that personal information there is entered by users Wikipedia-style and is not regarded as reliable. So any article sourced just to IMDB should be improved by additional corroborating references to other sources. Does this help you? --doncram (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article especially with a single IMBD support is one step away from worthless, in fact it is worthless and in desperate need of improvement or deletion. So your removing one template and replacing another template using AWB, imo, why don't you just add a decent reference and be done with it. Anyone can go to IMBD and search there for someone, they could go on a list of people that have a page at IMDB what is the value of us having a copy of the content from imbd cited to imbd? Off2riorob (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(composed before ec) In particular you were questioning this edit by me of the Gary Reilly page, which seems to me to have been a correct edit. Perhaps you are questioning the point of my edit summary, which includes "IMDB is a source, so..." That is referring to the fact that many editors do regard IMDB as unreliable and sometimes say "IMDB is not a source", when, obviously, it is a source. In my view it is incorrect for them to tag as "BLP unsourced" / "BLP unreferenced" an article which was in fact based on an IMDB profile. And that puts the article into the big BLP unreferenced issue, which is focus of a big drive ongoing. It incorrectly inflates the big issue, making it seem as if Wikipedia has more completely unsourced BLP articles than it does. --doncram (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


(after ec) Okay, your comment puts you into the anti-IMDB camp. That's fine. You should regard my identifying a bunch of IMDB-only sourced articles as helpful. It puts them into a category of IMDB-only sourced articles that can be addressed systematically. You can, yourself, choose to fix any one of these up properly with other references. I am identifying hundreds of these efficiently and thereby putting them forward to be addressed, which is part of addressing the problem you see with the use of IMDB as a source. --doncram (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you are identifying them, a blind man can see they have problems, they want googling and either a reliable source adding or proding or sending to AFD, or as I said, blank them and create a list, people with a page at imbd (actresses) or whatever they are. Anyway thanks for explaining. Have you got a link to this list that is being created? Off2riorob (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks Category:Articles_sourced_only_by_IMDB

Okay, good. Among the articles that i have so tagged are some very notable persons, e.g. the major actress Sondra Locke. That was one article clearly needing other sources, not to be deleted. And i see someone did add more to it, and properly removed the IMDB-only tag. FYI, there's more background about this, including a link to 10,000 articles appearing to have just IMDB as a source, in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons#IMDB tag?. Also the IMDB issue was discussed in some other threads on that page, the wt:URBLP talk page. Regards, --doncram (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the links, I will go and catch up on the issue and see how discussion is gong there. Mnay thanks for the detail. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:David Cameron

I'm bowing out mate! As far as I'm concerned it's resolved, but if the IP wants to speculate on the talk page all power to them. I can't see any registered editors rushing to describe David Cameron as "Prime Minister Designate", nor can I see anyone adding "Prime Minister" before DC becomes PM. (Well, OK, I can see some charmer adding it, but I also foresee them being reverted within seconds...)

Oh, and good to see you again! Despite the IP's claim as to your political persuasion, I hadn't clocked you as partisan - I guess you did a good job of WP:NPOV when we worked together in the past.

Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GB's alt text

No objection from me - it looks like you're adding alt text where there wasn't any before, and it looks like you're adding text that describes the image as opposed to simply providing a caption. As far as I'm concerned that's all good, makes the article more accessible, and is using alt text exactly as it's supposed to be used. Maybe you've thought of a potential concern that I've not? TFOWRThis flag once was red 13:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Stowe Discussion page

The latest page was archived by you amidst a very important discussion of what should and should not be considered relevant. Skol fir had made an argument against Mr. Stowe's conviction for smuggling drugs and the time served [1] as well as his back child support owed before he departed [2]. I posted these on the discussion page and will be very careful to cite them in the future. Regatta dog (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Leadership

Hello Off2riorob,

I'd have to disagree with the delete of the declined candidates and possible candidates.

If you look at other articles for leadership contests, (see Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2003, Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal Party leadership convention, 2010 etc.) it shows that some of the people (largely) speculated to be candidates for leadership are mentioned.

While I agree with you that a list of all people that might, quite possibly, enter the race would be a large waste of space and time, I believe that adding people who have formally announced they are not running, as well as people speculated to run, (with citations, of course) would be a good addition to the article.

Your thoughts?

Bkissin (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, I will have a little look in a bit. I don't see a benefit to reporting who says they are not running, the article is actually about the people who run, that is all it is about imo. Please feel free to comment here but it would be better to join in on the talkpage there, regards. 16:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

Clegg

I went to add the cite but now can't find it. I would say feel free to revert my edit but it looks like you already did. I'll try to find it later (if I wasn't imagining things). Dblevins2 (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Hi Rob, no worries. I just see a report has been filed on this matter by other editors, so no need to bother you with it! have a good weekend and hope you have time to revert to my email sent some time ago. Fragma08 (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike's talk page...

...what do you know that I don't? ;-) This sounds interesting...

Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 22:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron and Harman

Hi Rob, I've put an explanation at the Talk:David Cameron page about the relationship - or lack of it - between Harman and Cameron. If, as the Sun says, it's just a case of g-uncle marrying an aunt then they are not related. Cheers. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai / Persian Gulf

Ironically, I spent my teenage years in this country as an expatriate. Prior to moving there my family called it "Persian Gulf"; when we lived there the government preferred "Arabian Gulf" - so the entire expatriate community called it "Persian Gulf" just out of badness ;-)

In the case of the article in question, pov-warriors have been changing "Persian" to "Arabian" and back again for - well, years, I'd guess. I was hopeful that my approach would slip "Persian Gulf" past the radar of the "Arabian Gulf" faction, without upsetting the "Persian Gulf" faction too much...

Oh well, no good deed goes unpunished!

Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 11:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

I deleted it, since I see no real need for it. But feel free to reverse if you feel otherwise. Crum375 (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Take care. Crum375 (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: John Thaw

Piña Colada-garnish with a pineapple slice and maraschino cherry
a bebida nacional do Brasil

Rob,

I know that you are in Rio on the beach sipping piña coladas, but why did you remove the entire "Personal life" section from the John Thaw article?

Who is this sock puppet? Why the wholesale removal, wasn't any of it valid? Please explain.

>Best O Fortuna (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ipanema Beach
One of Rio's many beaches.
Rio on the beach sipping piña coladas? Sir Floyd (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Good morning, replied on your talkpage. Part of me will always be sitting on a beach in Rio drinking a Caipirinha, so cooling and refreshing. Off2riorob (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the edit that you reverted was just the sock reverted an IP just prior to that. I did not look through the edit history to see who the initial editor (s) were who put in the material in the first place. If the sock was the original contributor then it could be pulled. What was there (that you removed) did not look that objectionable, no outlandish claims or anything. No, IMBd should not be a credible source. While it may be correct, it is usually second-hand from people who don't double-check. For that section of the article ("Personal life") I would use Sheila Hancock's book that she wrote about the two of them for the bulk of it and then fill in with interview's of him, her, and the children. If I cared more about Wikipedia maybe I would do it. But because it allows outsourced material to get in and stay, and does not deal harshly enough with unproductive editors, I don't have a lot of sympathy for WP. Also, my pathetic library does not have her book, and I am on a tight budget. But, if you have her book, or can borrow it easily enough, that is what I would suggest. The bulk of the "Personal life" section has been mainly unchanged for about three years. Anywho, I hope people have enough sense not believe everything they read here, and know the truth when they hear it. My gut tells me that Thaw did drink and smoke to much and that cost him at least 10-years, and maybe 20. It is sad, I really like watching him. I am in the Western U.S., so I have not seen much of his work. Morse is my all-time favorite, and I am now watching the DVD set of The Sweeney. I might try and get the Kavanagh QC box-set next. Say 'hi' to the Ipanema girl. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me started on the girl from Ipanema, mmm .Garota_de_Ipanema The sock is a multiple offender and likes nothing more that digging up obscure comments only reported in a single location and thinks that wikipedia should be the primary vehicle to spread the obscure titbit, if I look through the thaw edits it will be him/her that added the stuff originally, there is more than one account from the sock in the history. In the UK drinking is widespread, it was the cancer whot killed him as I know officially. Feel free to cite and replace. His wife said he was alcoholic, my wife would if I had one.Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Dammit, are all these pictures necessary?! They only serve to make me wish I was somewhere - anywhere! - instead of here... (and drinking something - anything! - instead of 70 shilling. ;-) TFOWRpropaganda 13:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Consider Johnathon Livingston Seagull, if you really want it, you are there already. Enjoy. Off2riorob (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In pawing through this socks edits my gut tells me this: This guy works for a tabloid based in London (like The National Enquirer or the Star here in the U.S.). He is adding items that confirm crap that he (or someone he knows, like his sister) have already published in one of these toilet paper presses. For him to keep up this campaign for years, he must be getting paid, i.e., like he is already doing it for his paycheck, so adding it to Wikipedia is no effort and adds to work somewhere else (like a blog? or something). Okay, off to find the Ipanema girl in my mind. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added 11 references for the "Personal life" section this evening. One for every sentence, and almost every tidbit. The only tidbit I didn't see was that he had a setback the day before he died (but isn't that the case with just about everybody who dies like that?) If you see any references that you do not think are credible let me know. Now, if every section of every article in Wikipedia was referenced like that I would feel a lot better. But, people are lazy *&%#ers. ...tall and tan, and young and lovely......ah.... > Best O Fortuna (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

details

I will send you an email which will help explain matters.Malke2010 21:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather you simply understood the issue and moved towards more conducive environments. You need to also learn the reality that wikipedia does not affect anything, for example Michael_Collins_(Irish_leader) is a Catholic, I know it you know it and a blind man could work it out for himself, if some editors don't want it in the article just leave them to it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

check email.Malke2010 21:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collins and strife

I'm just puzzled by the emphatic blockading. I don't care about Collins one way or the other. Heck, my folks were Irish Protestants. It just seems odd that such a little simple thing is bringing folks to blows. And now it's OR and SYNTH to quote two different books. One cannot win.... Eastcote (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning

This is the only warning I am going to give you - WMC is, unlike you or me, an identifiable living person. If you continue to allege gross malfeasance on his part without citing any evidence, I will seek to have you restricted from doing further. On a different note, there is a difference between a "conflict" and a "conflict of interest." I have a conflict with you. I have a conflict of interest with my employer. WMC has a conflict with Fred Singer, not a conflict of interest. Please be more careful with your phrasing. Hipocrite (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Peraica

Off2riorob I would love your input on this Ana Peraica-Articles Section. Regards :) Sir Floyd (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to how it was prior to your edits it is greatly improved, not something I have seen much before but is someone has a lot of on line work and is more a writer of articles than books then I don,t see why not, that would be my only issue, that it cold be seen as excessive linkage to a subjects online work when that is not really one of the things a BLP should really be doing. is it? I don't see any need for the tidy sectiontemplate anymore. Off2riorob (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rob. Sir Floyd (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it looks unattractive. Sir Floyd (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there you see the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, imo it looks just dandy. Clear explanatory links is what I am looking for. I want to know who's link is it, where will that link take me if I click on it before I click on it, and what will it do, will it download a PDF for example, these are the sort of thing I like to know before I click on a link. Off2riorob (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hi Rob-I've sent you an email. I'd love a reply. Best wishes. Antlion 1932 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antlion1932 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been a bit lax at looking at my wiki mails, I will look and reply, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Oops, sorry I missed this. Though it was a result I agreed with, so no harm I guess! Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 12:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I was just bouncing the idea of you, thanks. It was rubbish though. If we kept everything then ultimately the wikipedia would be a mirror of existence. When actually all we want are the best bits/most notable bits. Off2riorob (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it amongst academics recently - a Wikipedia page seems to be becoming the essential CV item for any respectable academic, even if they're not-notable by our standards. I sympathise a wee bit - whether you're a South African imam or a British professor, it can't be nice being told "you're not notable" ;-) I guess we need to find a "nice" way to handle it: I'd be quite interested in reading about Islam in South Africa, or most things British professors study - just not the individuals themselves... TFOWRpropaganda 12:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I would want a wikipedia page, unless I was very notable. I think through whatever system it is that puts the wkipage at the top of the goole search results that people assume that having a wikipedia page is a good thing and will help them either sell something or become more notable, I agree with you that the actual topic of Islam in South Africa in the ciurrent age would be interesting topic. I am pretty sure we will have an article on that....Islam in South Africa...Off2riorob (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, you're a genius (and how stupid do I feel...!) It wasn't a topic I'd even thought about before the other day, but South Africa in general I find quite interesting - my home town has many South Africans immigrants, and I've worked with a fair few in the past. Islam, too, I find interesting (used to live in the Middle East, figure it's something that we should all know about right now). I'd never put the two together until you pinged me with that AfD article. Anyway, thanks for that - I'm off to do some reading! TFOWRpropaganda 13:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, you are so easy to please, have a nice (hot) day, best. Off2riorob (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Opinion

Some time ago I began starting articles on senior Nigerian politicians, don't know why. I find it slightly addictive, and have done several hundred: state governors, federal ministers, senators and so on. In many cases, I am probably the only person watching the article. As could be expected, they are starting to be vandalized. Mostly not attacks but attempts to remove anything that could be considered negative and/or to add praise. I could just continue to revert and warn, but feel uncomfortable about constantly rejecting changes to "my" version. I could post each to the BLP noticeboard, but they tend to be quite obvious so would maybe waste people's time. Advice? Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A talkpage lurker delurks...
Aymatth2, a couple of good places to try would be the Africa and Nigeria wikiprojects.
However... since this is a WP:BLP issue, you could also consider requesting that the articles be protected. If the majority of the vandalism/partisan editing is coming from IPs, semi-protection would probably be a good bet. However, for BLP articles the protecting admin may be more inclined to agree to full-protection - best way to find out is to request protection and see what happens!
Another option is: post here, and fools like me will check back over your recent contributions to work out where you're reverting, and then we'll add those articles to our watchlists! (Not promising anything, mind, just mentioning that someone could do it if they're not too busy...!)
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 15:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He isn't the messiah, he's a very naughty boy! TFOWRpropaganda 15:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes..in a similar vein. Hi, your works looks to me to be of a high quality and well respective as regards policy. A glance at your edit history is enough to confirm that. I don't anything wrong with your revert and warn actions. What I also do is if an article (especially BLP) is getting only vandal type edits from unconfirmed accounts tnen when there are a good few in a short time, ask for semi protection as that will stop you having to keep reverting the disruptive additions or removals...when your version is clearly fine there is nothing at all wrong with reverting back to it. I would be of no real point to take such issue to the BLP noticeboard, unless it was a single editor repeatedly disrupting a group of articles. If you need another pair of eyes and you have a couple of disrupted article I will add them if you like to my watchlist so that we can both revert to the decent version. Also it is good I have found to engage the accounts in discussion and point them to policy and the reason their edits are not within policy, that sometimes makes them give up and stop, or edit in a better way. keep up the good work, if you need help feel free to ask. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both opinions, which are reassuring. I am not seeing a flood of vandalism, just a slowly growing trickle, and mostly the editors give up after being warned a couple of times, so I suppose I will just keep reverting as needed. But I wish there were more editors interested in maintaining this area... Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes on the Sango page. I am doing a sort of penance on that one. The subject objected that the article was incomplete and unbalanced, which was entirely true, but then substituted a puffy autobiography with no sources and got cut off from editing. Politicians have to have thick skins but I can understand them getting upset when an article just gives a few random facts and misses important context. Anyway, I am working on a more complete and well-sourced version. I still have more to do on the later stormy political career - there is plenty of material. I suppose when I started this one I was thinking "relatively minor ministry, short duration, some years ago, no major office since then: quick sketch and move on..." But it easy to be impatient to "complete the series" from basic sources and miss the fact that these articles discuss real living people who have an understandable interest in the matter. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing a brilliant work there, he was upset about his article and it is our work as editors to have a duty of care for living subjects and at least create a decent balanced article. I understand that as you say, sometimes it is a lonely work but it is a valuable one, many thanks to you. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things...

I have named and shamed you as an editor with an interest in South African religions (and, by really dubious extrapolation, an editor who might have an interest in Australian musicals)... particularly in respect of AfDs.

Secondly, if this nonsense continues someone is going to say "featured article". And then you're going to come to me and say "featured article". And then I'm going to have to actually do some real work ;-)

Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 10:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the AFD is on its way, Australasian musicals?, they will likely put me on the email list now.....thanks. I thought about going to clear my name, but the damage is done.

As for Cameron. It is a mess and someone is going to have to do something there but I haven't the energy for it, you will of course get a glowing reference when I press the button, hehe... Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this guy if you're up for a non-political, non-controversial spot of FA work? Frankly, I could do with ignoring David Cameron until the post-election fuss dies down... TFOWRpropaganda 16:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just removed an addition that has a unformatted citation and the fantastic notable news in camerons life that he went to pakistan to talk with the leader to improve his global standing, yawn. I will have a look at the crippen article but at present my private life is extremely busy. Premiership of David Cameron is a good place to direct them. Off2riorob (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Crippen article is interesting, I may be able to join in as part of a team and to give encouragement and such, I will mention it also to User:Jayen466 as he is a good writer and has a few featured articles to his credit and possibly will be interested to help.Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happier as part of a team - I've not done much FA work, and certainly none on me lonesome. It also means private lives can continue, if we spread the work... TFOWRpropaganda 17:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have left Jayen a note about it. Having a project is a good thing to focus any energy. Lets see what Jayen comments, thanks for asking. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

heather for a Scotsman

here ya go: [3]. And thanks.Malke2010 00:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, lovely. Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rio Rob

So what's new? Sir Floyd (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm.... plenty, hehe. Floyd, where have you been? You have caught me on my way to dream land...zzzz. Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well my day just started. See you around and thanks :) Sir Floyd (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent. Sir Floyd (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Coleman

Thank you for your message. I agree that Coleman's article, which is on my watchlist, appears to attract higher levels of vandalism than many others.

I semi-protected the article today when I saw that his hospitalization led to a new round of vandalism. If the vandalism resumes when the semi-protection expires this weekend, I have no objection to long-term semi-protection. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your attention Malik. Off2riorob (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You too. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pls stop edit warring over it wait

I've undone your blanking edit, the third editor to do so. Please stop edit warring over this. You're welcome to look into whether or not Tan would like the page kept clean of posts all the time, but until it's known that he has asked, there is no need to rm GF posts by editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have removed your last edit because I could only see this as a personal attack. Padillah (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, if I read the history correctly, Off2riorob had previously removed it and was only re-adding it after other deleted posts had been reinstated. TFOWRpropaganda 14:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as any attack at all, but if you interpret it as that then you are of course correct to remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh

Probably best to just step back from user talk:Sir Floyd at the moment, per my comment at my page. –xenotalk 17:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci

Note that I filed a report on User:Mathsci's incivility. I keep promising myself I'll find a way to take the high road and not get sucked into silly arguments on Wikipedia. Rvcx (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Balls - twitter

I was just trying to find policy on that before removing it and when I can back it was poof, gone! Leaky Caldron 18:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FYI BLPN

Hi Off2riorob,

I have observed that articles involving religious personalities, especially those who have issues with the law, are perennially problematic due to raving followers. The page in question, whose information regarding the subject's illegal activities are all backed by RS anyway, has a long history of socks and perma-blocks (please see Petersantos, Felix Natalo, and Dar book). The subject is notably notorious in using all the tricks in the book, including giving himself "awards," that even admins unfamiliar with Philippine issues are now, just by being involved int the article, very much aware of how this person and his organization do their thing. Thank you so much for the heads up! I already went there and replied the allegation. – Shannon Rose Talk 15:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Off2riorob. I have already addressed the issue of the lead. Thanks for calling my attention into it. – Shannon Rose Talk 18:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Off2riorob. I was about to give you the link but I noticed that you have already found it and replied on it. The only way to improve the lead is to remove the second paragraph, which is wholly unsourced. Everything else is faithfully reflective of the information in the currently-cited reliable sources. – Shannon Rose Talk 19:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Off2riorob. The subject is notable both as a fugitive and as a televangelist. In fact, the rape case itself is notable and ripe for a separate article devoted entirely for it. The only one pushing POV is an anon who is most probably a sock of a perma-blocked user, which is precisely why I was requesting a checkuser. Please help encourage the anon to sign up so that it could be easier to verify, since he will be editing under the same username no matter what IP he is using. We cannot sanitize an article and gloss-out glaring facts just to please a POV pusher. The pastor in question is quite notorious and up to his neck in all sorts of highly-publicized controversies and criminal cases including hurting religious sentiments, estafa, tax evasion, falsification of legal documents, and same-sex rape. He is notable not just for being a pastor but for being a pastor and having all those problems. One who looks at the article should see that straightaway reflected on the first paragraph. – Shannon Rose Talk 13:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Floyd

Howdy, why'd (better yet, how did) ya use Sir Floyd's account to announce his retirement & adding the note? GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how were you able to use his account? Or is it just he, pretending to be you? GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I checked his talkpage history. He merely printed your name, instead of reverting. Was just curious. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, replied on your talk, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Child of Midnight?

Sorry, this is in response to your post at GoodDay's talk page (yes, yes, I lurk everywhere...!)

Has Child of Midnight gone for good? I can't say I was a fan, but I have fond memories of working together on some obscure US musician's article (I'd !voted delete, CoM !voted keep, and the pair of us brought the article up to a clear keep level).

Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 15:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, make that GoodDay. I'm an atheist. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed ;-) I'd tell you I'm agnostic, but to be honest I just don't know. TFOWRpropaganda 15:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TWOWR, you are my favorite lurker. CoM was a net asset in my personal opinion but I also had a few disputes with her/him. CoM is/was around but has been blocked for one whole year and has been caught socking once already and I think the clock was turned back for that infringement. CoM hasn't said they won't come back and has not retired...so.....as my friend used to say...maybe..maybe not. Off2riorob (talk)

I never - as far as I can remember - had any disputes with CoM, but I do recall them being in some dispute with someone I know. Sound like it could have been you ;-) Anyway... shame, I'd agree with your analysis, purely on my own experience with CoM. TFOWRpropaganda 16:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the right track

From the BLPN May 2010.

A claim like that attributed to his opponent that has not been cited to any other location and is appearing to be an isolated opinion unsupported at any other reliable locations in independent reports, yes I would say without looking under those conditions it would be a WP:BLP violation, as in, contentious claims require exceptional citations. Off2riorob

Sorry to come in late here, but I want to agree with Off2riorob on the philosophical point here. "Contentionus claims require exceptional citations" is a concise statement, beautifully put. Now, as to this particular issue, and whether that burden of proof has been met, I don't think so, but I am not certain. I read enough of the discussion which follows to think that is almost certainly has not been met, but I applaud that people do seem to agree that in order to claim that Jenson "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites" we need it from his own words, not the synthesis and conclusion-drawing of his critics.--Jimbo Wales

-Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cats

Maybe you can cite such an example as I am checking carefully. Tim! (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well i started from those linked on the article from Fabian Society, and then check if membership is mentioned in the article itself and the claim was referenced. Maybe I was going too quick as thought there was mention of Brown's membership ( if not can be cited to http://www.fabians.org.uk/about-the-fabian-society who state all Labour PM's are/were members). Tim! (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Tobin

Hello, Off2riorob. You have new messages at JRPG's talk page.
Message added 22:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Email

Hi Rob, Further to post above on 23 May, I don't want to be a hassle, and I can certainly see from all the above that you've got your hands full, and handling all these tricky wiki-type issues.......(really amazing stuff!): but if you could put that article to bed and email it to me so that we can get it up and get the template removed (? And, come to think of it, how do you do that?) and I can move on I'd be very grateful. I have quite a lot coming up in June and I'll be out of range a lot, so it would be a big help to me. Best wishes. Antlion1932 (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language accent hats

I see that you've deleted the help desk query, but since I'd got as far as writing this reply, you might as well have my opinion:

From my reading of Wikipedia:Article titles#Special characters and formatting, I think that the article title should include the hat, with a redirect from the hat-less version. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gavan McDonell

Gavan McDonell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi! No big deal, but I was wondering why you removed the "Like resume" template? (i.e. I think it still reads like a resume.) Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am work in progress with the Bio, I have trimmed about thirty percent of the uncited and the resume type content, if you are interested in improving the article, which may involve reducing the content. I would appreciate any assistance. Off2riorob (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also happy to help if I can.Antlion1932 (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your tag

I see you put a tag on Janet Quist. I have doubts of notability based on the current criteria. I prefer to follow the rules as much as possible. I did not make the rules. Before all playmates were automatically notable, but this is not the case. This person doesn't seem notable. Some playmates are. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Suuomi, yes I did over a month ago now. That article is no longer notable and feel free to AFD it if you want. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of WP is that massive AFDs will make people mad. My current policy is to nominate only really bad articles, non-notable as well as poorly written. However, I occasionally make comments at AFDs about merely non-notable articles. The quality of writing is not supposed to have a bearing, just the notability. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes , they can get upset when articles they want to keep are nominated but, hey, you can't please all the people all the time. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP

I'll be interested to know if he shows up here complaining about the template you gave him as he did here [4].Malke2010 17:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, me too. Malke take care to define those twinkle template as close to the issue as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, it is correct.Malke2010 17:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name question...

...OK, quick explanation before me question: I tend to use people's full username, regardless of whether it's obvious what their real name is (e.g. for a user called "FredSmith", I'd call them "FredSmith", not "Fred", not "Fred Smith", etc). Partly that's because it's a good habit to avoid outing (a few editors have emailed me, and I know, for example, that "FredSmith" is really called "Geraldine", but by using their username I avoid accidentally outing them).

So... my question is... "Off2riorob" - I could guess a name from that, I could continue calling you "Off2riorob", but what's your preference?

Cheers, TFOWRidle vapourings 10:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to my real life name I could not say, but here on Wikipedia Rio or Rob or Off2 or Riorob, your welcome to refer to me as whichever you prefer. Off2riorob (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, way to narrow down the options! I suspect I'll wander between options, until I find one that my fingers type the easiest ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings 10:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to express what appears a bit coldly, you can choose and I don't mind. In disputes I insist users refer to me my my full honourific title...The well known POV edit warrior with a lengthy block log-Off2riorob.
Heh! At some point soon I'm going to have discuss my block log. No, you didn't come off coldly - to be honest, it reminded me of me prior to my name change. My view was the same as yours, call me what you want: "Flag", "Red Flag" (???), "TFOWR", etc. My only restriction was that people were not to call me "Geraldine" ;-) and to be honest, I wouldn't have objected to "Geraldine" either - it's not my name (wrong gender), but neither is "TFOWR", surprisingly enough...! TFOWRidle vapourings 10:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to call you Gelaldine (even if you ask me to). You have only that one small block from Nov 2008, that is not an issue. You should add the details to the ..have you ever been involved in any disputes question answer. Off2riorob (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spoilsport! Regarding the disputes question, I need to sort out my archives (I discovered I have a whole load of archive pages I didn't know about, covering precisely the kind of dispute I want to discuss). Coincidentally, I posted a message to one of the editors involved earlier today - they've been active at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid, though I hadn't noticed until recently. Block-wise, I think I accepted at the time that it was a good block, or at least that I would probably have blocked me under the same circumstances...! TFOWRidle vapourings 10:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it yes you did accept it well and politely. It was just a case of over excited vandal reverting from 20 months ago..nothing unusual and nothing to be worried about. Off2riorob (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&oldid=365636068"