User talk:InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting

January 2014

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Amanda Lindhout, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Lindhout

I'm just wondering why you insist on putting in the phrase "the two no longer speak", as this is clear not provable. It is also not of encyclopedic interest that an ex-boyfriend doesn't speak to his one-time girlfriend, so why do you feel it is important to re-add this statement? Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read the sources. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't have an argument as to why you want to add the non-encyclopedic information? It's not appropriate to add information to a BLP that serves no purpose other than to theorize as to someone's personal relationships. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "argument" is made in the sources. It's also common sense. I've spelled it out for you in the Talk page. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not have a response that shows its validity in BLP policy, then the phrase is best reverted. Decent job on your other additions though! Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page. If you care, you'll read it. No need to repeat it here. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not engage in edit wars on Wikipedia over controversial edits. You've been warned in the past, continuing to be intransigent about defaming a well known figure will likely lead to a block. Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of engaging in an edit war with you, I have added an item to the talk page. The item does need to be removed unless it can be shown why this is not a breach of the protective policies we have on this site against mistreating living people. Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]