User talk:Mr.grantevans2/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


You are established enough not to need a template but; do not add poorly sourced attack material about living persons into articles. WHat you added was pointed and highly partisan. The accuser's political affiliation is irrelevant to the matter. Do not add it back; consider this an only warning level note. --Errant (chat!) 13:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh? What's wrong with the Miami Herald that was given as a source [1]? You may argue the weight, but the place for such a content dispute is on the article talk page, and a BLP warning is entirely inappropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
It's attacking the woman based on vague online sources (admitted in the source) and so fails WP:RS. The content was added with a subheading designed to draw overt attention to a minor part of the narrative. The editor was told not to add the content and so at least should have realised a discussion had to take place. So, yes. This is a BLP issue and a warning is appropriate. --Errant (chat!) 14:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Um, no. The Herald (not exactly the NYT, but a reasonable and serious newspaper) states the basic facts in the editorial voice. It also reports on them being posted online. The waring was entirely inappropriate. If the content should go in can be debated. But it must not be bullied out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but we must agree to disagree; the source fails WP:RS mostly for being a poor tabloid attack piece. The aim of the content added was to disparage and undermine; hence a BLP concern worth warning. I'd also strongly advise you to avoid throwing around silly accusations of bullying out content. It's bad rhetoric. (page is off my Watchlist, Mr.grantevans2 if you wish more help/comment then drop me a note) --Errant (chat!) 14:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


I would prefer it if you didn't repeatedly stuff in such promotional fluff, I have a thread on the talkpage, you were welcome to seek support for your desired addition there, thanks. Its his life story, not that john and harry support his wikileaks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Your getting a bit disruptive now, you shouldn't have done that, didn't you join in the discussion at the WP:BLPN please attempt to edit in a WP:NPOV way even if you support mr assange, that like is a redirect straight back to the artcile. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What part of the consensus and discussion didn't you understand here - the content at the link has been deleted and it is a simple redirect back to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

ok, I wasn't watching the BLP noticeboards. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You are too busy attempting to portray mr assange in as good a light as possible that you can't see anything else. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
) Naw, I really do try to promote NPOV in the article edits I do, I really do. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Please, do you think I am blind and stupid. It makes me sick when people try to use wikipedia as a mouthpiece for their POV, get a blog why don't you. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The only way you could be right about this is if you know what's going on inside my head and I don't know. One of the biggest problems in life is the assumptions and judgments people make about other people. When its about someone you know personally, it can be heartbreaking and permanent when you're wrong, e.g. Othello; when its about someone you ran into a week ago on Wikipedia, the consequences of being wrong are zero; but here's the rub; the brain is a computer, the way you judge the people and their motives whom you meet online is programming you to apply the same approach to judge the people and their motives in your offline life. Now, if you really care about or want to know what my pov is, all you have to do is ask. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Multi-threading: "more classified than unclassified"[edit]

I'll be concise: Please don't copy/paste text in multiple forums. Better to paste it in one place and paste a link to the discussion in the other places. The reason is that if the whole text is in threee places, threee seperate discussion start. Thanks you, brenneman 04:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

discussion and consensus[edit]

Hi, can you attempt to seek consensus on the talkpage, the repeated insertions and reverts is going to result in the full protection and locking of the article which I am sure you don't want, neither do I, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Respect, I see you presenting there, there are a few experienced neutral editors there and I am sure they will accept anything worthwhile, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

replacing material[edit]

Hi, I am removing the material as it is an unconfirmed claim from assanga against living people in the court case coming up, please stop replacing it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks header[edit]

Comment? Ocaasi (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you?[edit]

Reply at Talk:Peter T. King#Various edits reverted, something you've failed to do to date? Oh, I strongly suggest you do not attack or question the motives or myself and/or other editors again. 2 lines of K303 13:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a picture of a snort quantity of cocaine on your talk page? and an apparent attempt at humour relating to executing British Members of Parlianment on your User page?Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
not to mention your "2 lines of K" moniker directly above, which in some circles is a reference to Ketamine illegal drug usage.
Your answers will have a bearing on whether I should be having any discussions with you at all. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2 lines of K303 12:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That one[edit]

"This is a totally non event and non-notable off the cuff bad joke made and quickly rescinded."

Actually, there is an ongoing police investigation and both assange and his lawyers commented in regards to that one. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, another Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, yes, its a conundrum with Liddy.I don't see how his comments can be included without referencing Watergate(that's what made him infamous) and yet that's too tangential and wordy. It would be better to use another threat or criticism by someone else,I think, if you feel another one is needed. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
No, your probably right, actually I think I or we removed them all last week with talk discussion but another user really pushed to replace some of them, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Keeping Your Cool[edit]

Just wanted to drop a note. Thanks for keeping our cool regarding that unilateral edit. I don't want see an edit war arise. Its just not fun. If you get a chance, please let me know if my suggestion works for you. Lawblogger18 (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on my talk page. I am ok having Fladrif bless the citations, but I am going to reach out and ask him to do it quickly. It seems we have consensus, and it does seem a bit odd having the worst version with the most discord posted while we fine tune the better version with the most consensus. Lawblogger18 (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI - I have posted a note to Fladrif's talk page. Lawblogger18 (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Welner LEDE Miscommunication[edit]

We seem to have had a misunderstanding re: LEDE section. Please clarify on the discussion page your objections to the paragraph as it stands so that we can reach a consensus and move forward with the rest of the bio. If your issues is limited to including more information about the Depravity Scale, please note that we are better served keeping the LEDE brief and expanding on the topic of the Depravity scale in its respective section. In fact, another editor has expressed some desire to take a shot at editing that section. Thank you for getting back to me as soon as you can so that we can progress forward.Stewaj7 (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I responded on BLP talk page and STewaj7 talk. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


Two quick notes. Quit accusing me of POV pushing to try and validate reverts - it is boring and uncivil, if you do it again I will take it to WP:WQA and ask you to provide diffs. My aim here is to apply NFCC carefully, I already did a sodding load more than the rest of you to let us keep this image (i.e. try and find out if it was freely licensed). Secondly, our NFCC is important. We assume images are non-free unless proven otherwise - if you can prove it is free I totally support the use. So please do go ahead and do so. However, I think the image really is non-free - and per our relevant policies the fair use rationale only allows its use alongside the critical commentary. There is no rush; we will get a free image for the article, have no fear :) --Errant (chat!) 16:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

ok, I apologize. But good grief, you really do seem to me to be pushing a somewhat over the top view of the rules. The Foundation has lawyers to watch out for this stuff, I think. What say we leave it to them when there is broad disagreement amoung ourselves? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
You are responsible legally for all your additions - no lawyers are protecting you at all. Your vague claim for you additions that other unnamed falsely named pseudonym users supported me would be a laughable defense. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)