Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:42, 11 August 2011

• note - recently created alternate account User:Riorob watchlist2. - Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Off2riorob's talkpage. If you are unable to post here follow this link to post at my unprotected talkpage.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.

talkback

Let you know

The stuff that you removed here was added into this article within four hours of your removal. I just thought you should know. Silverseren 04:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not a perfect solution but at least it wasn't re-added to the BLP. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ezra Nawi cat

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

Where are you on that talk page? Had you read it you would have noticed that, given the delicate WP:BLP questions raised by various editors, an administrator decided that anything on this issue be thrashed out to consensus before messing with the page. 'A fine cat' does not consist of one person, for which it appears to have been invented. That looks very much like a POV cat. There's plenty of that taxonomic stuff you can throw at Nawi (see the Moshe Katzav page, as I said in my edit summary) if branding is your game.Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems completely appropriate to me - what could be inappropriate about it - he was convicted of a sex offense - he is an Israeli sex offender - we have the cat for many countries. About your other comments, throwing this and taxonmic and Moshe Katzaf - I simply have no idea and it appears irrelevant to this simple cat addition. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Signatures as autographs discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Autograph_as_signature_in_infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindustanilanguage (talk • contribs)

Hi, off line until late this evening, I'll catch up then, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Broken version

You fixed part of the problem here, but it's origins are much bigger. Please take a look at the bottom section on Drmies's talk page. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC) (As I have explained there, I can't fix it myself.) Bielle (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ayoung-Chee

Do you have anything to add to Talk:Anya_Ayoung-Chee since the IPs are so hell bent in adding information about the girl's sex tape? —Mike Allen 06:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sexuality in BLPs

I'm just wondering, by your standards, when would a BLP subject's sexuality EVER be noteworthy? What would it take to convince you that it was? Since it appears to be important to you, I am not a one-issue editor, although I am very much a casual editor. I find your views on the notability of human sexuality to be unsupportable in literature or in the number of BLPs that DO include references to the subject's sexuality and/or relationship history. ColinATL (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

When a subject of a BLP 's sexuality is notable it is pretty clear - obvious - and widely discussed and reported in independent reliable sources - imo that is not the case presented about this person. There are some BLP articles that do include sexual details when it is not notable, this is as I have seen always occurs in relation to homosexual labelling (it is not notable to be homosexual) but the wiki is a big place there are policy violations - its usual to just deal with what is in front of you - perhaps a community RFC is required to set a guideline. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So despite the numerous sources cited in the case of Luke Evans (granted from 2002-2003 before he was well-known), you feel this is not "obvious" enough? I have never encountered a requirement of "obviousness" when determining notability. People were widely discussing Evans' sexuality in 2002-2003, although granted it was within a smaller community. Evans HIMSELF was discussing the importance of being open about his sexuality then. Just because he chooses now to muddy the issue doesn't make his past statements any less notable, if anything it makes them MORE notable. Your use of his recent dating history as a reason for his sexuality being less notable is illogical. Notability can't be undone by contradicting the underlying facts later. By the way, at some point, don't you think sustaining this barrage of discussion actually starts to make the notability of a thing more likely? ColinATL (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Users that are focused on sexuality will talk and talk but it doesn't alter the basic fact that someone sexual preferences are in general not notable here are wikipedis or in general encyclopedic-ally anywhere else - chat forums .. sure. Gay chat forums definitely. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You state a fact which is not acknowledged as a fact. It is what we principally disagree on, and hence this discussion. The simple fact of someone's sexuality may or may not be notable, I think it is, you think it's not. Regardless, you did qualify that that as "in general" which means that there are times when it may in fact be notable. Luke Evans gave an interview to The Advocate in 2002:

Interviewer: How did you decide you're going to be open about your sexuality?

Luke Evans: Well, it was something that I'd spoken to a lot of people about, including my boyfriend at the time-we've broken up now-but at the time when I just got Taboo, I knew that even though my part was a straight character everybody knew me as a gay man, and in my life in London I never tried to hide it... So I thought, well, I'm going to have to be open. It's who I am. And if people don't like it, then I don't want their jobs.

http://books.google.com/books?id=v2QEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA55&ots=ryIXRPJTFQ&dq=luke%20evans%20gay&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q&f=true If that statement there doesn't make his sexuality notable, then I don't know what could. Seriously. ColinATL (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify your POV concerns on Tony Tan Keng Yam

Else I do not know how to address your concerns and move forward. I am trying to actively solicit discussion and compromise; if you ignore this notice, I will take any further amendments I make as not a revert. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 23:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't falsely accuse me again

In fact, don't post to my talk page again, for any reason. Doing so constitutes harassment and I will ask that you be sanctioned. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you post another message on my talk page I will report you for harassment. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)