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)

Vic Mignogna

Further to your message please note that I reverted the edit by IP 68.97.100.236 as it was tagged as section blanking and the IP didn't give a reason for the removal of content. If you check the revision history you'll see that the edit was made without explanation. Denisarona (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

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

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 23:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Off2riorob. You have new messages at Cbrick77's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BLPN hat

It might not be usual to archive a discussion but it was perhaps necessary to stop it happening at BLPN, the incorrect forum. It isn't really a BLP issue and despite asking for the thread to stop there and for discussions to happen on the talk page people were still adding to it. If there were another way of discouraging this then do please let me know. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well someone thought it the correct forum and I see no benefit in hiding it. Hatting is not something that is usually practiced at BLP noticeboard. I doesn't really matter where the discussion happens. Historically usual at the BLP noticeboard is just a comment - this is not very contentious lets discuss it on the article talkpge usually does it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well it stopped discussions there and sent them to the right place to make constructive comments so it did work. The fact that you undid it doesn't really matter now as it served its purpose, so I guess it all works out anyway. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Great - thanks Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Edit War Warning

Dear Off2riorob,

You placed the Edit War warning to my talk page. With respect, this is a mistake. I did not revert your lead edit, I just did a couple of small factual corrections, which were properly sourced:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&diff=442898686&oldid=442893832

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&diff=next&oldid=442898686

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&diff=next&oldid=442901991

The attack was perpetrated not by me, but by user deepdish7:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&diff=next&oldid=442902328

In fact, I agree with you edit of the lead--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your correct. I gave you one just so as not to be accused of one sidedness as to the issue but I agree with you in regard to your contributions - basically its a ping pong match in out in out.. and even if the man is accused of this and that he is still a living person and we need to have a NPOV well written well sourced article. with deepdish7 wanting to keep it as it is I see improving the article as not going to be easy. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, would you consider endorsing the sandbox porposal for the Berezovsky page, pls? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Sub_page_.28sandbox.29_idea_for_testing_revised_outline --Kolokol1 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I will have an hour to look at it in depth tomorrow afternoon/evening. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Apology

Now that the matter has been settled that I am not a sock puppet, I would like to apologize for my heated remarks against you on my talk page. You are a good editor and you were just worried about someone going around a block. I took your accusations personally and got a little angry when I shouldn't have. I'm going to stay out of matters that don't concern me and that I have little experience in, especially ArbCom. I don't hold anything against you for your suspicions and I hope you don't hold anything against me for my remarks. Vale! Cbrick77 (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool , I am appreciative of your understanding and very happy to resolve this amicably, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Opinion needed

What do you think of the image being used at Angus Scrimm? It's a fairly unfortunate depiction, but is it so egregiously bad that it's worth removing in your opinion?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at any discussion if there is one.. I would say its not so bad as to require removal. If we have others I woukld like to consider them but its recent and thats goood and he is getting on in years...the google pic returns provide a fair few similar representations so imo its not so bad as to "require" removal. The uploaders file uploads seem to be a bit hit and miss if you know what I mean and theres no meta data with the pic - although its claimed to be released by the uploader under a commons license I personally would not more it to commons. All my pictures that I have taken and uploader have the meta data attached.. Another one of his uploaded files - Scottdawn - looks like something found and cropped to me. My personal opinion is that there is no evidence that the uploader is the copyright owner of any of the punctures he has uploaded.Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Adam Levine

What is the source for this edit? What I mean is, "has a minority of Jewish ethnicity, most of his related ancestry is not Jewish"? According to the cited source, "Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish". Do you have a source to contradict this? I have no problem with the atheist/bar mitzvah comments, as long as they're sourced. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Jewish news refers to his father as Jewish but they are clearly unclear as to what they actually mean - he is not a full Jew and the subjects Jewish ancestry is being over egged, he has a minority of Jewish ancestry according to the source. Its a matter of interpretation. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How does he have a minority of Jewish ancestry? I just don't understand. What it looks like to me is that Adam's father is Jewish, and Adam's mother is "half Jewish" on her own father's side. With Adam's mother's mother being the one who is not Jewish. Article talk page sounds just fine to me. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't fracture the discussion to multiple talkpages, perhaps keep it at the BLP noticeboard or the article talkpage, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

current disputes

• I am no longer acting as an intermediate of neutral party with respect to JC, JS, or BG, or in fact in that area altogether. Recent events have made me too involved--along with the apparent refusal of one of the parties to accept my neutrality. I've always said that, when this happens, unless the person is clearly not saying this in good faith, the admin should not insist that yes, they are neutral. anyway, this is a dispute where nobody can stay neutral very long. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)