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)

who's really being paid for madness on berezovsky page

Just for you to know, whom you were protecting all this time on Berezovsky page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Foundation_for_Civil_Liberties as you can see from description, this is a firm funded by Berezovski.

From the link description in the bottom of this page you can infer, that Kolokol is their "Foundation's news project (no updates since 2006)"

Doesn't it have clear resemblance to Kolokol1's nickname??? It can be a mere coincidence, but it's all up to you to judge

• UPDATE - Kolokol1 himself confessed that he's indeed "associated with several Russian dissidents, including the subject, you can call it COI, I don't care. I will not disclose my identity because I do not want to get a dose of Polonium in my tea" - see Berezovsky page discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29#Banning_Deepdish_or_Kolokol1.3F

September 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Deepdish7 (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Editing and representation of your posts on my talk page

Hello, I just checked the editing history of my page and got a hint of what you meant. Don't worry I have no ill feeling towards you. In fact, I will be pleased to cooperate with you on any Wiki Project with an open mind and heart. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah , great, I thought you missed the history. Cool - Me also in regard to working with you - thanks Hindustan - Off2riorob (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

odd behaviour

Has "silly season" struck in other than straight political articles? I was astounded that archiving a section of an article talk page would actually engender such apparent hostility, to be sure! Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not keen on the "silly season" additions but like Jimmy commented, I have no idea how to stop it and perhaps if we just work with it as best we can that is the best way to go. Lately I have seen that although we actually allow a bit more leeway on article talkpages, most BLP violations occur on such pages. I have started moving towards archiving stale and resolved article talkpage discussion as and when I see them as resolved or troublesome - as an experianced contributor I would expect other experienced contributors to assume I am working to benefit the project, if anyone is wondering what I did this or that, just ask. Off2riorob (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Daphne

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

Guess who's back. JohnCD (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC) ...oh noes.. Off2riorob (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(personally attacking post from Kont Dracula (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)- deleted)

I don't personally think Sam Leith is wikipedia notable - that is not a downer on him. You didn't add his nomination to the article for http://www.commentawards.comunlill after I tagged it. - personally unless he wins something notable - industry back slapping promo award nominations are of little impress-ant to me or to the wiki notability levels as far as I am aware - anyways, the talkpage awaits you. I have opened a discussion about it on the talkpage, perhaps you would like to comment there - Talk:Sam Leith - Please just stick to the content I am bored of/tired of/blunted to such personal attacks on my reasons for doing this and that etc, you are welcome to report me to whatever noticeboard you like, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 08:09, 21 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.

Kaci Brown

Redirecting to an album generally isn't a good idea because it makes the album A9 bait. In this case, Kaci Brown meets WP:MUSIC since she charted two singles. Ten Pound Hammer and company • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

She hasn't got a contract and is of extremely low notability. I redirected it because she was uncited for five years. Feel free to improve . Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Which I did. Ten Pound Hammer and company • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It won't make her any more notable - she is now more notable on wikipedia than in real life or anywhere else for that matter. Why not just add a link to the billboard charts or create a list of all the extremely low notable people that ever charted on the minor charts. Off2riorob (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey rob, could you give me some input

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

At Ezra Nawi? I've just hauled it out of the slough of stuby despond in which it languished over a month ago. I think I fixed one or two things you mentioned, as per my latest list on the talk page. It's much larger now though, and needs critical review. I'd appreciate if you could give me the one-over, and provide me with insight and input to improve it. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the topic is well out of my expertise but your edits look NPOV and like a clear improvement to me, well done, regards. - Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks, rob, for that expenditure of your time. Best Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Deepdish

Congratulations on your new role as Deepdish's conduit to ANI. We'll miss you at BLPN as I'm sure your new responsibilities will take up most of your time.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha, it seems quite on the wiki recently, I am almost missing myself. I think it better to topic ban deep and unblock him..or... that doesn't seem such a good idea really..its not going to end well is it.. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm more worried it's not going to end at all rather than what kind of ending it is. I'm hoping at some point soon an admin will bring closure to the ANI report. I keep trying to get it back on track, but all it seems to do is generate more hubbub.

Hasn't been quiet for me on Wikipedia as I've been battling (uh, discussing) a COI SPA on the Martin Hosking article. Her last comment sounds like she may finally be willing to listen to reason, but I really don't have time to deal with it right now as I have other things I've neglected. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes that happens ... I think there is a degree of support to let him have his rope. I doubt hes gonna stop until hes indefinitely blocked and then there will likely be socks, he has socked before so .. whatever he is not going to be allowed to recreate the previous attack page. As for Hosking, the more popular or accessible wikipedia becomes the more reason there is for COI editing, sadly but true. IMO we give them to many chances sometimes, I think that because of the open environment - some users although disruptive would make even worse vandals, better to keep them on board a little. Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

new essay

You might look at WP:Wikifurniture at some point <g>. Collect (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps a bit .. not really helpful. I see BLP zealots as generally attacking but attempting to balance that might not be the best way to go. Off2riorob (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Northamerica1000

User:Northamerica1000 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I notice you have an issue with the {{rescue}} tags this editor is adding everywhere he has now added one to Marshes Golf Club. Mtking ^(edits) 11:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I see he is just deleting queries from his userpage as well - Houston we have a problem... I am going to make a report of what is occurring to the articles by way of improvement/or not as the case may be after he has added the templates so as to see cause and affect results from his tagging. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment - It's not a Wikipedia policy to provide a rationale for every rescue tag, as some editors feel that tags are self-explanatory. Thank you. All of my tags were added upon my basis that those articles may actually have enough reliable sources to qualify topic notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you he is still at it. (~70 in the last 24hs) Mtking ^(edits) 08:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Lets do a survey of the last 100 rescue template - and see what if any improvement happened to the articles while templated..? And - percentage kept etc.. Off2riorob (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

He is also rewriting the rescue template guidelines - Off2riorob (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Print Council of America

Print Council of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Print Council of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Rob, Because this group publishes so much, their own stuff shows up high on the Google Books search. I tried to be careful not to mention any sources published by them or written by their officers. Another editor found a bunch of sources as well, including a Los Angeles Times article written about them. Can you please either reconsider, or explain in a bit more detail why you think the sources offered are insufficient and not independent? Would it help if I added what I see as the best sources to the article? My questions are in the spirit of friendly collaboration and a sincere wish to respond to your concerns so that this article can be kept. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has been added to the article ? If there are assertions of notability I would expect to see them in the article, in this never never wiki land that is the only place any assertions have any value imo. If the article is improved I will reconsider. List of vague external links posted to an AFD, or a link to a google search result, many of which are often not wikipedia reliable are of no value imo at all. I often never click on any of them. - Article improvement and the content in the article at the time of my vote comment and my own investigations compared to the nominators rationale are my main considerations. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I will add the best sources to the article and ask you to take another look then. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

When you have the chance, please take another glance. I think it meets our standards now. Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Advice

Although I've become increasingly confident about my editing skills, I've also become increasingly disenchanted with many editors' gratuitous attacks on things I've done. I realize that unfortunately Wikipedia has a high tolerance for inflammatory behavior and very few editors agree on civility issues, but I'm on the higher civility end of that spectrum, and it's very hard to (1) ignore the attacks and (2) not to get stressed out by them. Also, very few editors who may even disagree with the "attacking" editor will come to my defense. For whatever reasons, some of which may be arguably sound, they prefer to remain silent. Even while posting this message here, I am mindful of the fact that nothing on Wikipedia is hidden from view, so this post will, of course, be visible to anyone who cares to look at it. Unfortunately, I haven't found any mechanism for seeking advice on this sort of issue that is private (other than an offline exchange of e-mail, which is not something I want to do).

I write to you because I know that you have on occasion taken a fair amount of abuse and because you are one of the few editors who has been supportive in the past (you're not as wary of speaking your mind as some). I'm not sure what I expect of you, but any thoughts you have on how to deal with this stuff and the attendant stress would be appreciated. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with email discussions of such issues Bbb23, that is one of the reasons we have the email this user option. One thing to do is not to take comments personally (sometimes difficult but a point to start from) - use policy to defend your edits - give warnings and if the issue is repeated report the user. Sometimes it is a little upsetting - then take a break or edit another topic, take the offending users or articles off your watchlist - that makes them disappear. If someone is upsetting you, I or someone will take over the discussion,- remember its not so important. - Be careful which discussions you get involved in and know when to step away. Its true , sometimes there is no support, many users just want to keep easy going and make some content improvements. Sometimes there are a few users you do not get on with at all - stay away from them as much as possible, its a big wiki. Sometimes, you make mistakes, thats also normal here, even the most experienced contributors, we are all human. - sometimes those mistakes seem to come in groups, just hold your hand up - accept the trout, nothing is broken and learn something and let it go, move on. ... all good advice for me also.. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob. I don't like e-mail discussions because I feel strongly that I have to protect my anonymity. Let me give you one recent example of what I'm talking about for your uninvolved opinion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefano Pelinga and edit summaries like in this diff. If you wish, I can give you some detail as to what I did before making the AfD and why, but I don't want to drown you in my own defense. I don't have a problem with someone disagreeing with the AfD, but it was so heavy-handed and essentially accused me of bad faith that it struck multiple nerves.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as anonymity goes, you can have a email discussion using the wikipedia email system and that way all your details are kept private - just send a mail using wiki mail and then when you get a reply to your personal email address just again reply using the wiki mail - thereby never revealing your personal email details to other users. I will have a look at this specific issue you mention ' -WP:AFD is one of the most uncivil areas of the project - and also extremely divided amongst the regulars.... ...looking.... Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm, that looks like one of those situations were one thing leads to another and if the first one is a little wrong the second is a little more and the end result, with hindsight is not perhaps the correct position. Your stubbed version was nice and tidy, and I can see why you trimmed it. Clearly your actions were not reflective of that edit summary comment, and you had no desire to remove all hints of notability and then AfD the article, was not your objective at all. As a suggestion - take care what you nominate for deletion, its a very emotive issue... if you had just left it stubbed, say for a couple of days at least to see how or if anyone developed it, that would have been better. The trick player does now seem in his field a bit notable - he is the winner of (in his field) major awards. COI creation was perhaps the first problem with the content (but that is the way a lot of articles are started). There is still a consensus to delete.. but that could change. I might, leave a note on the users talkpage explaining my actions were in good faith, even if they were not the best contributions I had ever made, they were in good faith and well meant...etc... I might reassess my position and retract my nomination or I might just let it ride, allow the user to defend his article improvement and if closed against you then take it on the chin and learn from it for the future, and then forget it. Take solace from the fact that I have nominated a couple worse that that one and still, its all learning process here, just not to continually repeat that same ones is a result. - Another good reassessment position is to be open to editing to improve what you first though wasn't worth keeping.Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at it. Why is your speculation as to what I did and why exactly right and his totally wrong? I wasn't even thinking about deletion when I first edited the article, which came to my attention at BLPN. I was just cleaning it up. But after that, I decided its notablity was "borderline" (the word I used at BLPN). My approach to AfDs is that it's often healthy to nominate and discuss an article even if it's not clear it should be deleted. Some articles are clearly notable and others aren't. The community benefits from discussing the deletion of articles in that gray area. In any event, I cannot bring myself to post a message on the editor's Talk page, nor can I bring myself to withdraw the nomination, partly because it's still not clear to me whether he's notable. The editor has done a good job of providing new sources and updating the deletion discussion, so I'll let others decide. By the way, your comments about AfDs being contentious is also exactly right - most of my recent stress has come from AfDs. Your advice about how I could have handled this one is sound. Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering how you came to the article, from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive131#Stefano_Pelinga, thanks for the detail. I agree with you - he is still borderine and I haven't found much more than is already there, the unlinked external articles that I have searched I have been able to find online or archived. Sometimes a comment comes over wrong, or a user is a little upset, perhaps has close personal knowledge of the subjects and personally feels strongly about it - yes, let it roll, and let it go, the wheels aren't dropping of meu amigo, and users that work closer with you are aware of your beneficial and good faith contributions, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Warm greetings to both of you. I stayed away from that Pelinga AfD debate because I thought notability was borderline. I think that Rob makes some excellent points about not taking these matters personally, but I admit that a few debates have gotten under my own skin. So, like Rob says, we need to learn to take our own advice. BBB23, I think you are a great editor, and I encourage you to not take things too seriously. Hey, if a borderline article has been improved significantly, withdrawing an AfD nomination with a kind word to other editors buys you a heap of good will, in my view. I've disagreed with Rob a few times too, but when I see how diligent you are, Rob, in defending BLP standards, I am very glad that you work so hard here. So, I am heading off to bed with my wife of 30 years, who is just getting interested in adding her excellent photos to Wikipedia. I wish both of you well, and thank you for all you do to make this a better encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, what a lovely wake up post, many thanks Cullen328 for your comments, best regards to you and your wife. - Off2riorob (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 13#Common Dead

• - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 13#Common Dead

66.131.199.156 (talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 13#Common Dead:

That is enough to meet WP:Music guidelines, and the obscurity of the artist in hand with the apparent bias of the article's challengers is really the issue here.

As a participant at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Dead, would you explain how you came to the conclusion that Common Dead fails WP:MUSIC? In other words, what was your opinion of the sources? This is essential to determine whether the article should be relisted or kept deleted. I am inclined to support relisting but am willing to be swayed if the "delete" votes did not consider the sources sufficient or reliable enough to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• - looking....Ah, User:Sandstein has saved me with a timely closure - I can feel a recreation coming on, the IP support position seems to be close to the band. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Harman

At what point does IP get blocked for his persistent edit warring? He has been warned numerous times over an extended period, but I don't feel I'm the right one to take beyond warnings. -Rrius (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If they continue to disrupt while the RFC is going on I will report him. I have warned them earlier today. I think they have a little more rope but not much. I know this has been going on for weeks now, tiresome. If they continue I will report them, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You have some gall

Don't ever do this and call it "good faith", and then go and leave shit like this on my talk page straight after it. You talk about WP:DIGWUREN. Remember WP:BOOMERANG. Now, stay away from my talk page if you want to dabble in rubbish; you are welcome if you truly want to AGF, meaning retract the comment you left. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)