User talk:Off2riorob

• 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.

(Manual archive list)

COI-inflicted content

Hello. I saw this edit of yours and I was curious because I think I disagree. Is having a stale, COI-inflicted biography that languishes (with tags, at least) part of what you meant by addressing and neutralizing? I feel, at least, like I run into these sorts of articles constantly. I just found another: Jeffrey Braithwaite. Should an article like this be reported somewhere? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The best thing if you come across one is simply to edit it. Trim it back t the noteworthy cited content - if its not notable in your interpretation of wiki policy and guidelines then WP:PROD it or WP:AFD it - the thing is that wiki is a work in progress and yes, things do sit waiting for improvement - the project is massive and that is just a current reality of the way articles can freely be created. See diffs. It might also be a not notable company but I will let it settle for a bit to allow for improvement etc. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As for Braithwaite I asked a question at talk portal medecine - here Portal_talk:Medicine#Jeffrey_Braithwaite - Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm trying PROD and a post at WP:COIN led to the editor being blocked. Their user name was that of an organization. Jesanj (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the prod and the block - all going on as per wiki guidelines - well done - regards - Off2riorob (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings

Hey buddy. How you doing? Hope everything is fine and well on your side. We miss you on the music-related articles... Regards, Scieberking (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Scieberking. Good to see your still contributing. I was just searching the internet for a good concert to go to ...this looks great - Tribaltech 2011, featuring Astrix in Curitiba Br. Oct 29, - Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I doubt that one's for the love of Trance music.. but maybe Brazilian chicks :p I've been to Morocco and fortunate enough to hear the original and ancient Trance music.. simply magnificent and otherworldly...! Scieberking (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Music first - Cream Ibiza 2006 - listening to - sunset here.. haha. Off2riorob (talk)

Hey! You were a fan of The Who back then.. (i'm too) how did you get into this noise music.. :P Scieberking (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I was a northern soul dancer....my brother took me to a Who concert.. and I got a motorbike and ... here I am, love it all really. Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Great, you mod! And I'm a rocker... Wanna fight, LOL... Scieberking (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No.... I was a mod and a rocker, ha! Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I'm from B.R.M.C. and you from The Beetles ;-) Scieberking (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Black Rebel Motorcycle Club - I will listen to some of this music and get back to you - (constantly updating) - Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah, bad guess.. It's about The Wild One - Brando's 1953 movie which kinda "vulgarized" it all. Scieberking (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

At least its not the Barker Road Methodist Church - I am not a follower of the Beatles , but I do support the, The Long and Winding Road approach towards life, best. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Surprising that you never said anything about "our" Brando who is, according to many, greater actor than "your" "Olivier"... :) Scieberking (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Olivier is a bit highbrow for me. I am like you more affected by, reflective of modern icons like Brando - Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the conversation man. That was a lot of fun. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed

An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

1. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
2. Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
3. To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
4. If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Right. Many thanks to the clerks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I have mentioned you in a discussion here [1]. Writegeist (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the notification Writegeist. - Off2riorob (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry for what I did with the Bush article but that's the only article I've done it with so please don't block me. Malke accused me of doing this in other article's but he is wrong in this instance. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to block you. Just find a agreeable position with malke and let the other articles be as they were, no worries, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well what I don't understand is Malke won't let me say that the reason the men on Hansen's show go to jail is meeting people underage that obviously is the reason and he claims I said that 16 was the age of consent everywhere when I never said that and he also claims that no such thing as age of consent exists which clearly is not true. All I said was To Catch a Predator stops at 15 and that it has adults grooming minors below age of consent. The To Catch a Predator article said this before I edited it and he demanded that I take that down even though I didn't write it in addition to my edit to the Hansen article where I did say that. And he also claims I made it up that there are states with an age limit for sex below 18 but I tried to say that earlier in article and two editors tried to block me for saying that so I think his facts are wrong there to. Can you help us in terms of finding what phrasing is appropriate and who is correct? I have not been edit warring I took down my edits that he told me to I just want to know if its possible to restore because I think not using the term age of consent makes it unclear why these men are in trouble. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You are backing a slow horse here - as per your contributions to the project so far I would topic ban you from the under age pedo area - and encourage you to contribute in other areas, and then when you gain experience I would reconsider your being able to return to the topic - right now you appear to have a conflict of interest in the sector that is so opinionated as to be unable to contribute there neutrally and in a manner beneficial to the article content. Off2riorob (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Why would you ban me? When did I state something inaccurate?--RJR3333 (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC) And what "opinion" did I express I only wrote about the changes that have taken place. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyway - I can only point at the issue - I don't care enough to talk about it. You would do well to take my advice but its up to you. Off2riorob (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I suppose you were saying that I was biased in favor of a lower age limit and I've deleted the edits that suggested that but I'll refrain from editing that for the future I suppose. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Bob Turner (politician)

Hey RioRob,

I actually have emailed before, but with no response. The email was actually directed to a campaign aide, which is not as good as the real source, so I wasn't expecting much anyway. I'm optimistic that a photo may emerge at some point. I don't know much about the photo policies here on wikipedia, and from my experience, a lot of people make them up just because they want to delete things.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one, and am not going to re-paste a photo. If there was any possible way for me to obtain one that would satisfy the wikicommons establishment, please let me know. Thank you!

Sincerely,Screwball23 talk 01:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool - Email the main guy. I will sent one off tomorrow - you have contributed a well written informative article and he may well feel like improving it himself by contributing a commons pic - well done on the article Screwball - Off2riorob (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Hello, Off2riorob. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've answered your questions here. I hope it's OK but I split your post into two for extra clarity. --RA (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, no problem - I appreciate your reply. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ed Miliband

The article Ed Miliband you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Ed Miliband for things which need to be addressed. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Pic on Bob Turner (politician)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

RE: my change and yours

I have frequently—in fact, always—observed that where a fair use rationale on a pic is under challenge, that the pic stays up during the pendency of the challenge. Certainly this seems to be the rule where someone is requesting permission, as I said I was. I also see several other reasons for it to stay up, and had added a few of these to my edit summary, but do not want to debate these at this time.

What I am wondering is: where is the rule or policy that dictates immediate removal from the article but which allows the pic to stay as a Wikipedia file for several days? I don't doubt that such a rule exists, but cannot find one, and again, this seems contrary to WP practice. Thanks for your anticipated informative response to this particular question. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The pic has no place under policy and guidelines in the article, its quite simple really. It is well accepted consensus that living public figures don't qualify under Wikipedia:Non-free content for a BLP infobox picture, they are so replaceable that there can be no excuse to use a non free. The fact that it has yet to be deleted is no excuse to keep it in the article against policy. In my opinion it should really be speedily deleted and it was uploaded against policy and guidelines. The guidelines are the foundations statement in regards to a desired objective/ambition commons repository and the fair use guidelines/minimal use of. You adding this non free picture is stopping people wanting to look for a commons compatible one which in the circumstances of his very public profile and multiple public appearances will likely be uploaded in the near future. It is quite common for such disputed pictures to be repeatedly inserted against guidelines. I personally won't remove it again if its replaced against guidelines again, I might ask for it to be speedily deleted if its replaced. The mission of the foundation in regard to non free usage foundation licensing policy and is the resolution on which our Wikipedia:Non-free content usage rests - imo it is required of experienced contributors to look at the bigger picture. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Apparently you have very strong feelings regarding the use of pics in Wikipedia, and from this, I expect that I can look to you in the future when I believe non free use policy is being abused. To be consistent regarding this pic from the candidate's own website, you really should have it speedily deleted--after all, it is being used in Wikipedia, though not in an article.

As to your musings and accusations that "You adding this non free picture is stopping people wanting to look for a commons compatible one", I think that's a bit over the top, and borderline uncivil, as well as inconsistent with your admission that "in the circumstances of his very public profile and multiple public appearances [a commons compatible] will likely be uploaded in the near future". But I am glad to know you are such a consistent enforcer of policies as you believe them to be.KeptSouth (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It has been uploaded with a fair use copyright template so there is no false copyright claim and unless it is added to the article is is not being used. "Boarderline civil" - is in the eye of the beholder. You saw the discussion and you wanted to add it and you did, against policy and guidelines, imo that is uncivil. The picture was uploaded in violation of wiki policy and guidelines - I removed it twice and you replaced it - I have now removed it three times when it actually should never have been uploaded and you came to my talkpage calling me borderline uncivil - get lost. is borderline - piss off is how I feel about your borderline attack crap - Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I do not understand what you are saying about seeing discussion and adding to it - that is the right thing to do in my opinion - no "policies and guidelines" prohibit that. It seems to me you are simply trying to start a disagreement over nothing. As I indicated, I had no intent to keep adding the pic. But I did want to discuss this a bit more following the accusations you added to my talk page. But really, since you have such strong feelings about this picture, you should have it speedily deleted if it meets the criteria.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I didn't realize those were votes that meant anything. I'm still new to wiki policy, etc. Mar2194 (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

American Indian Model Schools

Hi! I rewrote the American Indian content at American Indian Model Schools WhisperToMe (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification - it looks good, well done. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) WhisperToMe (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)