Misplaced Pages

Holy Sh*t

] 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 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 01:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

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)

Tammy Jennings

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)

I was going to say something to you about Katie Price but, I no longer think my point is very important. This is tooo funny. Seriously, I'm going to save a link to this so I can look at it whenever I'm feeling down. Rossrs (talk) 09:07, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Dean Chamberlain

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\ 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)

Barnstar

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)

Re:Copy vios

FASTILY 01:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought: leaving umpteen twinklematic-type messages on somebody's talk page is not the way to win friends and influence people. And "Not as bad as Fastily" is a pretty rubbish excuse, aways assuming you'd been inclined to use it. If you ever feel the need to nominate a lot of images, as you did with MBernal615, please use a custom, hand-written, personalised message, and not the automated bollocks. Indeed, it might be better to ask first, and nominate second: "Dear MBernal 615, I am confused by some of your image uploads. You say that they were created by Foo, Bar and Baz, but you have marked them as being somelicenseorother. Can you explain why these are released under somelicenseorother if they aren't your own work? Very many thanks in advance. Your Wikibestestfriendforever, Off2riorob". Or something like that. Without the sarcasm maybe. Ta, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, next time I will try that. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Although clear copyright violations are just that and they are able to delete the templates if they like, thanks for your comments. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

DaL33T (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I never felt a thing. Off2riorob (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you actually know the meaning of defamatory ?

Get your facts straight before publishing & administrating contents. You are deliberately publishing wrong information in Aafia Siddiqui article although we don't expect anything different. Your prejudice and hate to truth is so blatant that we feel sorry for you.

rest in peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.209.110.156 (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi P

FYI, I've requested long-overdue semi protection of Aafia Siddiqui, which -- if granted -- should reduce the need for your good/diligent work protecting the page every couple of hours.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ep, good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Adam_Clayton_Powell_IV_(politician)

As per the request of Asaamblymember Adam Clayton Powell, we would like his Bio to be clear from any erroneous info.

Someone has been messing with several people including Assemblymember Adriano Espaillat and Assemblymember Jose Peralta.

Please make necessary corrections,

Best,

Aneiry Batista —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denny Pichardo (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

tb

Cherney

Hi there, and thanks for taking an interest in this case. I did revert the removal of the 'Interpol' stuff and agreed with Moscowrussia that I would remove the mugshots (which are now listed on WP:PUF as possibly unfree - thus my reasoning), and he would not remove the part about being wanted by Interpol. Although this guy is clearly wanted by Interpol, the current lead has been whitewashed of any wrongdoing, and the rest of the article now presents Cherney as a victim of... well, I don't really know. Nothing I can do appears to be working. What do you suggest we do next? Arctic Night 11:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If he has whitewashed the cherhey article then revert his edits, I also thought he had done that but wanted to ask you, he is on the verge of a report and clearly has edited from other accounts other accounts n the same manner, tiresome. Off2riorob (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to not engage in an edit war at the moment, even though I would most likely be in the right. Pretty sure some kind of report is in order (maybe WP:NPOVN?) Arctic Night 11:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, do you want to make one citing both articles? Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would prefer to just report for the Michael Cherney article (as I had a first-hand experience of what was going on there). I would welcome a contribution relating to the other stuff though :) Arctic Night 12:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have made the report. Anything you wish to add? Arctic Night 12:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have referred discussion to the article talk page. If necessary, a NPOVN report can be made. Arctic Night 13:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oleg Deripaska

Do you work for Oleg Deripaska or for a PR firm representing him in the UK?Moscowrussia (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I work for free for the Misplaced Pages. Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Response

You said: "First edit after your block to remove the same content, this is asking for a longer block."

Perhaps, but if that's what it takes then so be it. In case you haven't noticed, the amount of bias on Misplaced Pages is unbelievable. It has basically become a blog for left-wing talking points. And while this implies (and I readily concede) that it is likely to get me - and any one else who wishes to push for a centrist point of view (or especially a conservative point of view to balance the left-wing smear) - blocked, at least I can rest assured that I wasted someone's time having to do it. You seem pretty reasonably though so maybe you could help me understand something: Why would the powers that be at Misplaced Pages want to alienate such a large user base by exerting every possible effort to stifle opposing points of view - namely, conservative points of view found in well-sourced documentation? Sure, they may not agree with them, but does their wish to filter only liberal-slanted information outweigh the prospect of having a much larger user base with balanced information? By the way, when I say "opposing" points of view, I'm not talking about views that might be asserted by "birthers" (i.e., fringe views). I'm talking about mainstream views supported by well-sourced documentation. Don't they realize that they are hurting themselves by so stronly pushing a liberal agenda?Jt14905 (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The wiwi its policies and guidelines are attempting to be npov not liberal, although perhaps it is attempting to portray left and right wing positions from a liberal position, or rather in an encyclopedic way, one of the biggest problems is the the wiki is an encyclopedia but these days many of the people who come to add their opinionated tabloid twaddle have never read or even seen an encyclopedia and the biggest problem is editors that want to insert their position into articles, its awful, imagine if someone doesn't like someone, where do they go? Straight to the wiki to add whatever negative content in a negative way that they can find in anything close to a citation, its the most awful thing here, what[REDACTED] needs is people to join[REDACTED] and overcome their personal positions, you are welcome here and there are things you can enjoy in the community, adding or removing that silly hair splitting comment at that article will not change anything at all, actually almost no one will ever read it, over 80 percent never read anything apart from the lede and over 90 percent never click on a link to read a citation. Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Susan Roesgen

It would be better if you didn't just revert other's edits as you are doing, but at least watch yourself for WP:3RR violations. Also, please don't use the description of "vandalism" in cases of edit-warring.

I'm requesting the page be protected again. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors that are clear socks and POV pushers that have limited edits should IMO be blocked indefinitely on sight. I consider that an experienced editor should have freedom to revert such additions from such editors without recriminations. Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like sock-/meat-puppetry. Has anyone started a sockpuppet investigation? --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Good faith neutral experienced editors should not even have to waste a second of their time and typing to make a report, such accounts should imo be blocked indefinitely on sight, we are too soft here with such people, quality editors leave due to having to deal with such worthless disruptive additions. I for one can't be bothered to report them, just revert on sight and then if they don't go away an Admin should simply block them indefinitely, job done. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, especially with not wanting to waste time. The article is fully protected for a week. After that's over, I'll take it to ANI to get some guidance on how to handle these SPAs if they continue. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz, the bigger picture awaits, we need to change the conditions for new users, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Why don't we just require applicants to demonstrate proof of membership in the Democrat party? Cut to the chase, ya know?Ceasarswife (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

They can be whatever political party they want, but if they want to use[REDACTED] to propagate and publish their personal bias then they are in the wrong place, they need to go out door knocking or get their money out and pay for their own website. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Even when dealing with obvious POV warriors, you still have to be careful. Some accounts you can take one look at and know they're going to wind up blocked for various reasons, but you have to make sure you still do everything by the book. The last thing you want is to have someone who's only here to push their POV to catch you, and wind up letting a bad editor get a good one blocked. It's always best to wait for the cavalry. Dayewalker (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The cavalry ought to get their s**t together, they are at best lazy and absent. The policy processes to protect a decent editor from such actions are weak and need strengthening.Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the comment by Ceasarswife, see WP:DENY. I would have just removed it myself. Talk about your waste of time. --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have just blocked him and his sock if I had a button. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You said that if a person wants "to use[REDACTED] to propogate and publish their personal bias then they are in the wrong place..." Here's what I want to know (and I promise this will be my last question): When people on Misplaced Pages say that, do they actually sincerely believe that? In other words, do you honestly think that Misplaced Pages is not completely filled with editors who edit in a blatantly biased fashion? I could never figure that out - whether the people who said that knew deep down that it was a total crock (the more likely scenario) or whether they actually believed it. I'd like to believe the latter, but I simply can't fathom such a large number of people suffering from either a serious mental illness or a dangerously-low IQ. So am I correct that deep down everyone knows that they're editing in a completely biased fashion but simply don't have the cajones to admit it? By the way, no need for nifty exclamation points with associated warnings about "Battles" and what not; I won't post on your talk board again (or attempt to edit Susan Roesgen). Nevertheless, I eagerly await your response. Respectfully, Ceasarswife (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a total crock, there are thousands of good articles..I do think that we should be less suffering of clear disruptive accounts. General editor bias is almost normal, the objective is to overcome your own bias and work for wikipedia, go to the article of someone you really dislike and make it more NPOV, start with that, are you looking for a mentor?

Mr. Murtha

I see you wrote an opinion of TVC15's page. I am a bit disturbed about using heresay testimony. The family wants privacy according to the internet. We have someone, who probably wasn't even there give a comment. We all assumed it was a cut but there are reports that it could be a heat probe. One person said he was too stoic and waited way too long. That's why the cautious thing to do would be only to say he died presumably of complications. Was it even just a routine surgery or was it already busted when he had surgery. Some people's obituaries don't even list the cause of death. I'm not sure what the best thing to put but I do think deep thought is always good before editing in Misplaced Pages. Good luck in discussion. I know too little about gallbladders so I'll leave it to the gall bladder experts. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Corporatism article - thank you for contribution

I noticed that you have made some edits to the corporatism article, could you assist in building it up. I have been in a very bad dispute with another user that I have sent to be resolved. I was wondering if you could provide a third opinion to some of the material in the article and assist in building it up.--R-41 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What you need there is a block button. I will be piggy in the middle if he will accept an independent third party. Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Derby Cathedral Tower

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

As the edit said 'NONSENSE' ! Although one be inumerate one be not illiterate ! The height of said tower be around 172 feet (170 and 171 have been noted in various books over the years). The formula for converting metric into imperial be beyond ones ability ! But, and this be the reason for 'wikis' disrepute, just because one particular source utters one particular 'fact' does not make that fact 'gospel'. As one has noted on the discussion page for this article, Derby Cathedral Tower be at best thirteenth (!) in height ranking. Our sources over the years be many an architecture book... too many to mention and no longer to hand. So ? So methinks it be better to delete this whole paragraph unless it be 'Wikis' intention to mislead. ROBERT TAGGART (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is good cited content. Off2riorob (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Cited or not - it be nonsense / misleading / wrong ! ROBERT TAGGART (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That is just your idea, what evidence have you got I trust the mountain rescue team. Where is your evidence? Off2riorob (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Shortly after this exchange this editor ROBERT TAGGART was blocked for a week for disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Cherie Blair

You may attempt to remove the op-eds if you wish, but I would strongly advise against any such attempts at censorship. Nach0king (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd start boning up on WP:NOT if you want to go down that road, because by every measure this matter passes WP:NOTE.Nach0king (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, feel free to be bold in your editing, but if this has to go to arbitration, it will. Nach0king (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I would humbly submit that the voices in your head in this instance, as in others, bear little or no relation to reality. In any case I see you've ceased reverting for now, so perhaps there is no need for arbitration after all! Nach0king (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Threats of arbitration are totally excessive, as are your references to what you rudely call the voices in my head, this is a discussion about content, your threats are a joke. Be happy the[REDACTED] is grateful for your fantastic addition . Off2riorob (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Shortly after making these threats to me and making an addition to the article that I told him was excessive and coatracking, this user admitted on the talkpage there after another editor also said it seems to be undue weight ... admitted a conflict of interest in the issue and declared this....

"I must disclose that I am a member - albeit a passive one (card-carrying and little else) of the National_Secular_Society - so perhaps it would be inappropriate of me to edit further."

I would never have guessed. Off2riorob (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Fan Club

Looks like you got a fan club and sock farm all in one go Rob....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is true. What is it like Off2riorob? Sir Floyd (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's simply a waste of what could be more productive time. Pass me the block button. Off2riorob (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Have a beer Mate! Sir Floyd (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Floyd, you must be reading my mind, I am off downtown to get some ingredients for a cake party at Proof's place later and I will have your VB and a couple more as I pass the waterholes along the way , many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

mentoring

What gets under my skin is the unbelievable inconsistency displayed by editors who will hold one entry to a certain light, use all sorts of rules on it, and then totally ignore their own verbiage when it comes to articles that they have a vested interest in. Rd232 and JSRP are the champions of this sort of behavior.

Look at one example. So, I find a reference to how the Human Rights Foundation got money from the "socialist left" government of Norway. I include it. He undoes it saying that this is "unlikely." The initial source I had found was in Norwegian. So, I find another source. Now, a new editor *removes* this and says "it was for a specific event". Well, duh, all funding to a non-profit group is going to be for something. And the editor in question (JN something, i forget) then goes off like a banshee. I am about to undo that edit and ask that either ALL funding sources are studied and tagged with whatever they are supposed to be funding or NONE of them get special treatment. MarturetCR (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Good morning, remember, you are very new here, only 40 edits, new editors do have this idea that they have to change this and that immediately, to correct what they see as wrong, take a step back ..listen to advice..read a few policy pages. JN is an amigo of mine and I can say that he is one of the most neutral and correct and fair editors here, so if he says anything at all best is to take his advice, best regards to you and him. Off2riorob (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing (user treasury tag)

• This warning is a shame in itself, I have friends here but supporting them with something like this I would never do, my amigo's can stand up for themselves and they do so, this warning is totally unwarranted and I totally dispute the value of User treasury tag's comments. Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• This editor..user treasury tags made six or seven edits on this day, all of them to add drama to the wikipedia, nothing of any benefit at all.It makes you wonder doesn't it? Only four edits yesterday , have a look. Jump up out of nowhere like a sock .Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy

I think an RfCU will be necessary if he continues to edit as he has been doing, but he is comparitively inexperienced and unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, so probably not yet. DuncanHill (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If as you say he is.." comparatively inexperienced and unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines" then he should not be an administrator. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

He has 40,000 edits going back to 2004, and has been an admin since 2005. Just out of interest, who wouldn't you consider "comparatively inexperienced"? 92.10.21.60 (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

He has been away , editors and people like this need to again reinsert themselves into the present environment, get to know what is the present enviroment, perhaps his editing style was ok a few years ago but today there are clear issues. Off2riorob (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A discussion you might want to partake in

Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Marcus (comedian) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

European Universities Debating Championship

Hi,

Can you have a look at an article for me (European Universities Debating Championship) - I seem to be getting into a Edit War with another editor and would value someone else having a look.

In summary, I think the article has two main issues - firstly it is sourced almost exclusively from the websites maintained by a one Colm Flynn a long time debater for which I am not sure they meet the WP test of WP:RS - I have posted to the Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard but no one unconnected with the article has responded. Secondly is the amount of detail about each event - even though this is a team event the other editor is insisting that the names of the members of the 3 loosing teams must be listed (setting aside the issue of the WP:RS) I think that this is not relevant and as these are not notable and the including runs contra to WP:NLIST. I offered to compermise and let him include the detail in the main table of winners but he felt that it did not work and needed a second table with team members.

The other editor has called be obstructionist - I don't think I am just trying to keep this article fit for an encyclopaedia.

If you think I am being obstructionist please let me know or if you can offer any advice it would be welcomed.Codf1977 (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)