Misplaced Pages

User talk:Off2riorob

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) at 16:36, 14 November 2011 (→Civility). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:36, 14 November 2011 by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) (→Civility)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome to Off2riorob's talkpage. If you are unable to post here follow this link to post at my unprotected talkpage.
 Welcome
If you start a discussion here on my talkpage I will likely respond on this page as I like to keep discussion complete in one location. If I feel the discussion is confrontational or attacking I reserve the right to request you to host it on your own talkpage. If I move the discussion to your talkpage please do not replace it here, I will delete it.

Please check

Hey, I was looking for a place to post the story about Mayawati's government committing a police officer. What do you think about putting it here? Whistleblower protection in India? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi and good morning to you. I am not going to to remove it from there - however, someone being or going crazy is not the blame of any government and perhaps you are running with the press titillation? You should ask yourself what the reports factually are representing? and then report that...Are you suggesting that he is not crazy and he has been illegally locked in a mental asylum by the authorities as revenge for his whistle-blowing? I would say that position in itself is a conspiracy theory. Your addition is the connection of two facts and a bit leading that there is a connection between the two. Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I have not thought about it and would not want anyone to draw a conclusion. He may or may not be crazy; I do not think it is important either way, and there is no blame to direct anywhere. I regret that my wording led you to think as you do but it is not obvious to me how I could word it more neutrally. The reports are just bringing attention to dissension between high-ranking officials; that itself is newsworthy because it is so unlikely to happen and it is strange enough to appear in multiple newspapers without further context. If you have other thoughts then let me know.
I think a lot of BLP issues could be circumvented if their was a page for the administration of Mayawati, comparable to Presidency of Barack Obama. In such a page, the events which happen in a "Mayawati government" could be differentiated from things done by Mayawati. Actually, a lot of content on the Mayawati page probably does not belong and ought to be moved to a page called "Chief Ministership of Mayawati" or "Administration of Mayawati". This would be a major change, though. What are your initial thoughts on this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree there is other stuff I saw when I looked at the BLP that did not really imo belong there. I only had a quick look - if there isn't a page that relates to the governing then one could be created - Premiership of David Cameron for another example - As for the content you added.... if you remove the leading I think it has no real value, or at least only limited value - if you accept he has gone crazy and is in the asylum for the benefit of his health, what is left ? - the issue is the crazy bit asserts so much that adding them together is unavoidably leading. A man said the government was corrupt and he then went crazy. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
So far as I know, the man who made the accusation and the people denying it were peers because they were of near equal status. I put no value whatsoever on any speculation of whether the man was mentally ill because that has nothing to do with why I think this was reported. Of course there is no news if a typical person says this. Leave this issue for now. Either more news will appear or it was not important.
Let me think for a few days about proposing a governance page and checking to see whether this already exists for other Indian politicians. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, cool. I am here if you want to bounce a few ideas around or get a second opinion - best regards - Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Dracula

Rob, I want to wait a while before responding to KD. It would be nice if the editor would devote energy to proper referencing rather than nursing grudges. One can hope. Cullen Let's discuss it 22:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

His personal attacks on me are totally undue, have been ongoing for a lengthly period of time and are apparently unending - if he continues I will escalate. He seems to now be starting to attack you also, "I perhaps have mistaken you for a neutral person..etc.." Perhaps try suggesting to him that he explains his content issues without mentioning me. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It seems he is using my talk page as a surrogate for yours, as (understandably) he's unwelcome here. He would be better served to re-write his Maltese journalist article as a well-referenced NPOV biography, as several editors suggested 20 months ago. Cullen Let's discuss it 22:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes. as long as he stops attacking me I don't care what he does. Actually I do, he has also started to attack you, and I don't like that either. You are totally correct, either he re-writes his Maltese journalist article as a well-referenced NPOV biography or he stops going on about it.
I've written a detailed response to all his points, plus demanded on my page and his that he cease all personal attacks against you and me. I apologize to you that a naive question of mine triggered attacks against you. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I've now told him to stay off my talk page. Cullen Let's discuss it 17:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. He's had plenty of requests and advice and is still attacking. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

thanks for your help as I was a bit of confused as where to ask? Vyom25 (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries - I see it was actioned quite quickly - Best regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
yeah it's done.....thanks and same to you --Vyom25 (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Off2riorob. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sock puppet

Care to explain this? Any evidence at all for such an accusation? Or does taking a common position opposing you on one article make an editor a sock puppet? nableezy - 23:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. That's quite a claim to make. — HelloAnnyong 23:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems quite a reasonable claim to me and question to ask - similar editing interest. Lots of connected contributions - another user has previous suspicions. Single purpose contentious intermittent contributor. Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't be silly. RolandR (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You have very similar interests - silly is the biased detrimental editing in the Jew Arab sector, yours and his single area of contribution. Off2riorob (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
That, as you well know, is simply untrue. Please stop this petty harassment and return to productive editing. RolandR (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

van. dalism

Hrm, I think if you blatantly ignore consensus, that is disruptive and vandalism. You can't really be in good faith ignoring it. Obviously as the situation updates and we determine a long term value for the idea and it gets removed or expanded that is different, but an immediate revert, just trying to start the argument again is def disrupive and vandal imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A good faith single removal could not, and should not, ever be described as WP:VANDALISM - the user might not even know about any previous decided consensus discussion - simply politely revert, welcome them, assist them if possible, and point them in the direction of the discussion.Off2riorob (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bieber article

Hi, I saw the consensus. However given the developing nature of the story I felt it disengenuous to leave out the info coming out of Bieber's camp that they will submit to a paternity test and potentially countersue. TO that effect I added an unbiased piece about that and included a source from ABC (Who is fairly reliable). Hopefully we can reach an agreement on that part without getting into an edit war. This is done in the interest of "being bold" of course. -- TRTX 01:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk - please keep additional discussion there. thanks Off2riorob (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Help

This guy Vazhikatti user_talk:Vazhikatti is constantly adding is his own photographs and own achievements which does not have any reference to National Cadet Corps (India) and Indian Navy. I warned him 3 times but he keeps doing it what is the solution?--Vyom25 (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vyom - keep on with discussion and try to resolve that way - any major issues will need reporting to the related wiki noticeboard. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok I will try that way....thanks for your time.--Vyom25 (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Who's pov pushing are you on about?

I'm surprised that there could be any doubt as to whose pov-pushing I opposed, since you must surely have been able to see whose edit I undid. I think this is a real cause for concern; what do you think? I do not know whether or not there's any connection to the other newly-arrived sock which also takes a pro-NLP stance and which created a bad-faith SPI... Anyway, I won't revert your edit; if you genuinely want to add promotional synthesis back into the article, and remove well-sourced content, you've got your way. bobrayner (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That account asserts they are removing POV pushing. As I have seen - if you create a biased article people come to balance it up - a stable article is a neutral article - and that is not, stable by reverting any edit to the article. citing BRD. User:Snowded appears to have a commercial interest in the topic/opinionated claimed "expert" involved user. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes; if somebody creates a biased article somebody will eventually come to balance it up; I would agree with you on that point. I just can't fathom why you made the edit you did as it appears to be going in the opposite direction, ie. helping a pov-pusher in their edit war. Did you look at the text and the sources? bobrayner (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I see POV pushers on both sides. and tag team reverting. As I understood - it was simply another position - perhaps rather than insist and defend one when there is clearly more than one, you should consider including a comment about both. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
There already was comment about both. However, one SPA is on a mission to add pro-NLP stuff even if that takes great leaps of synthesis, and to remove skeptical stuff even when it has five refs. Your edit was a continuation of that account's edit war. Did you look at the text and the sources? bobrayner (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
It looked worthy of discussion to me. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Which is why this edit restored the stable position with a request for talk page discussion. The user you are supported then edit warred without discussing the matter and has still not addressed the OR issues raised by several editors on the talk page. Something you have de facto supporting now with two reverts. You could really help here by explaining OR and SYNTH to Encyclotadd --Snowded 22:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
It seems hardly worth talking or explaining anything to them now as the reverting and reporting will likely suffice to get him removed from the project. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Why? its a first offense, normally that is 24 hours. You could help here you know. --Snowded 22:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
When he's blocked I will try to help him understand some related policy or/synth on his userpage. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
That confuses me further; instead of discussion, you hit the revert button again (perhaps more blind reverts will overcome the problem of "tag team reverting"). Did you look at the text and the sources? How on earth does that edit improve neutrality? bobrayner (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
As above it looks as if the user will be blocked. I will try to assist them if they return - meanwhile I have replaced the prior content. Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
:Actually it isn't prior content, its contested material inserted by E, which they have not defended against the charge of OR on the talk page. Thanks for agreeing the help them however. --Snowded 22:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's nothing personal. The NLP article is a natural source of drama which ensnares even innocent passers-by. Next month and next year we'll have some other, subtly different drama... bobrayner (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually...

I made more than half of the wolf subspecies articles, not just the Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf. You can see them listed on my user page. Anyways, have a nice day. :3 Silverseren 22:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see/know you are big into wolves, that was the reason I made the connection to User:AlbionBT - Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Montserrat Caballé

Hey, Mr. still-on-a-break Rob, I come here for your usual sound counsel. As I suspected, my long post at WP:BLPN about Montserrat Caballé gained little traction. Just transferred the dispute from the article's Talk page to BLPN. In your view, is there some other forum where I should raise these issues? Is it worth even taking to a place like WP:DRN (which I've never done), or should I just forget about it?

Thanks and hope you're doing well.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the template - thanks for the nudge. I will have a look at Montserrat Caballé and get back to you. Off2riorob (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I would let that one go - it seems like one of those situations where the subject has very strong Catalonia connections and perhaps not totally correct in MOS it doesn't seem unreasonable to mention it alongside spanish. The wheels won't drop off about such minor nationalistic discrepancies - sometimes I think its better to weigh the disruption of a BLP article against the disruption that would be caused to perfect it, may be a net loss for what is limited disputable benefit. - I am sure the spain/catalonian dispute has been well discussed already without a solution that everyone is happy with. If there is anywhere to open a discussion perhaps the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spain - I see her article on the catalonia wiki asserts a focus on catalonia. winner of the gold medal of Catalonia - Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to help. I will heed your advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Pointless redir seems hard to delete?

Please see User_talk:Nyttend#Theophosostic. Thx.  Chzz  ►  17:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Chzz. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
"blank them and request deletion myself" - yes, good, thanks. But it should've been easy for someone to ask G8. It's truly lame, and not worth wasting any more time on; you did nothing wrong at all. Thanks for answering.  Chzz  ►  07:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sean Hoare Lede

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

Hi Off2riorob, thanks for your assumption of good faith regarding my edit of the Sean Hoare lede. I mentioned his unexplained death because it occurred immediately following his contribution to exposing phone hacking in News of the World; his death received as much public attention as his testimonial, for obvious reasons. Like most others I don't know how he died (whether by murder, suicide, accidental overdose or otherwise), but any of these causes are significant. For the mean time it is most appropriate simply to note in the lede that he died during the affair, and that his death remains unexplained (this leaves open the options I listed above). I cannot find a way of writing the statement in a plainer way. -Darouet (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

He didn't look a well man to me, if I had to guess it would be drank himself to death and related issues connected to that. One day there will be an official coroners report, until then all we know is is was reported that samples had been taken for toxicology and there were no suspicious circumstances. I don't think we can or need to update until there are additional reports/details. Although - He was involved in the NOTW hacking investigation and he did die whilst it was still under investigation we need to be careful imo not to write as if one led to two. So imo its leading to connect the two in the lede. My experiance is also as per wiki manual of style we don't usually add the death to the lede and rather lie the article is now a separate section about the death is more common practice. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
We have to be careful not to actively pursue an editorial position that declares "there is no connection" between NOTW and his death; while you may feel very strongly that there is none, it should not lead you to delete notice of his death during the ongoing scandal, of which Hoare found himself in the center. This becomes an editorial position on your part; we don't need to write that Hoare was killed because he exposed Murdoch and the police, nor to we need to write that he drank himself to death, as you are happy to guess. This is Misplaced Pages: don't guess anything, and just write that he died of unknown causes. The details can be written into the later section on his death. -Darouet (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no citable connection between them. I don't care if there is one or not. I don't support adding conspiracy claims to his bio at this time - As I said - not in the lede in a suggestive manner like that. In the uk almost everyone dies of a stated cause - if the coroner writes that he died of unknown causes we will write that then, but that is not the case yet. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
"I don't care if there is or not." Please, I'm not asking you to put conspiracy theories in anywhere, but we will mention his death in the lede. It's one of the reasons we have an article for the man in the first place. -Darouet (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
No, we went down that road in the discussions - he is not a notable one event death he is a notable journalist. We are not going to add in the lede He died in October 2011. Its already there in the birth and death dates. Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I've read the discussions, and see his c. date of death (which is July, not October). What should be added is that he died of unknown causes during the scandal, i.e., immediately after his second contribution for the NYT. I know you're convinced this is coincidental, and I think it may well be, but I'm not intent on keeping this from the lede. If you feel that addition to the lede is too suggestive you might think about whether specific language, or the events themselves are suggestive. -Darouet (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I am going to resist your desired addition of suggestive details - the coroners results will be in soon enough. I suggest waiting for them. Please don't mistake me for someone who is bothered what happened to him, all I am interested is that wiki doesn't suggest there was a connection to anything. Off2riorob (talk)

NPOV

Could you find some information to address what your concern is?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a quick look earlier - a very quick one , and didn't see anything - I imagine that the attacks on him are swamping the support comments - as is usual in the press in such situations, but he does have a lot of support and the article reads as if he is hated by all - which is just not the case. He was only just forced out by a whisker. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Phillips

Hi, I have replied on my page Span (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Monti

Please be careful about this. Ta.  Chzz  ►  21:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Civility

As I know you are an ally in my efforts to encourage greater civility around here, I wanted to thank you for removing this so quickly but also ask you not to make such comments in the first place.

Some thoughts that you may find useful: One of the great strengths of civility is that it helps others to see who is in the wrong - when you answer rudeness with rudeness, it only generates noise that makes it harder for people to properly reprimand the person who started it. Let someone be as obnoxious and disgusting and horrible as they want - respond to them with professionalism and don't sink to their level. By doing this, you strengthen the community, build a happier environment for all of us, and make it all the more clear who needs to be banned for general obnoxiousness.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I let myself down with that comment. I will strive stay polite under pressure - I appreciate the note - Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:-) Thanks. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)