Off2riorob (talk | contribs) |
Off2riorob (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
::Good, thanks. Please see [[Talk:Overlake_Christian_Church#A_proposed_compromise_over_Moorehead_info | this section]] of the article's talk page. I don't know whether the IPs will see it or heed the request, but please consider it as applying to you individually, as well. Give other editors a chance to weigh in (not just the IPs) rather than just editing the article to your liking without discussion consensus. To be more explicit, I'm directly asking you to stop editing the article unilaterally and to discuss the matter on the talk page to gain consensus before you continue. I'll warn the IPs more emphatically than I already have to do the same. – <font face="Cambria">[[User:Ohiostandard|<font color="teal">'''OhioStandard'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Ohiostandard|talk]])</font> 13:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
::Good, thanks. Please see [[Talk:Overlake_Christian_Church#A_proposed_compromise_over_Moorehead_info | this section]] of the article's talk page. I don't know whether the IPs will see it or heed the request, but please consider it as applying to you individually, as well. Give other editors a chance to weigh in (not just the IPs) rather than just editing the article to your liking without discussion consensus. To be more explicit, I'm directly asking you to stop editing the article unilaterally and to discuss the matter on the talk page to gain consensus before you continue. I'll warn the IPs more emphatically than I already have to do the same. – <font face="Cambria">[[User:Ohiostandard|<font color="teal">'''OhioStandard'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Ohiostandard|talk]])</font> 13:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::I had a look but I can't see the content it is small and unclear, your worthless warnings and your completely unbelievable claims to be uninvolved are beginning to bore me. If the situation continues I will consider making a meatpuppetry report against you.[[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob#top|talk]]) 13:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
:::I had a look but I can't see the content it is small and unclear, your worthless warnings and your completely unbelievable and quite frankly ''laughable'' claims to be uninvolved are beginning to bore me. If the situation continues I will consider making a meatpuppetry report against you.[[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob#top|talk]]) 13:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:21, 11 February 2011
- Welcome to Off2riorob's talkpage. If you are unable to post here .
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
(Manual archive list) |
Mark Hardy
hi! i just saw the message that u left for me on my talk page. When i clicked on the link that u provided I did not see any listing on that page for Mark Hardy. Could you direct me to a specific location so that I can offer my input? thanks! Brittany Cintron (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, here it is , it was archived automatically after some days of inactivity, if you dispute anything feel free to open a new discussion either at the WP:BLPN or on the article talkpage, Talk:Mark Hardy (ice hockey)- (regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
Hello you!
I hope you won't mind my templating this message, but as there are several users whom I wish to express more or less the same thoughts to, it seemed appropriate.
Of course it's a shame things turned out how they did with regard to the thread on ANI about Someone65, but no great harm has been done and he will eventually get his comeuppance. I'd like to thank you for your support there - it's been noted :)
Best,
Egg Centric (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Olive merger
Hi. Thanks for redirecting Olive (fruit) per Talk:Olive#Merger proposal. Going forward, could you distinguish between "redirect" and "merge" (some content copied, requires {{Copied}}) in your edit summaries? The inconsistency here is a little confusing. Your last 4 edits removed links to specific, relevant sections; I've restored them. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was thinking - unless those sections are recreated then they no longer exist so the redirects require disambiguating, anyways if its better now, then great. I think I got confused with a double redirect or some such issue,the redirects and anchors did seem conflicted and complicated. I will have a look at what went wrong. As far as the content goes I took the option that a merge of nothing of value is just that - basically a delete or a redirect - which is similar also, the end result was the same, local users are better equipped to work on that, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Vaughn Walker reversion
There are two very large problems with this reversion you made to the Vaughn Walker article. One is that you have removed two neutral news references to restore one bad disputed ref. The other is that you have hidden this information even though consensus at WP:BLPN#Vaughn Walker is for its inclusion. Please accept that consensus has gone against you. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, limited minor consensus that is still disputed by me and other experienced users. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unfriendly consensus is always limited and minor. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- As you know me - although I will begrudgingly accept it - sort of, I dispute it is a worthwhile addition within policy and guidelines and so do other users, a minor consensus has little weight. Off2riorob (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unfriendly consensus is always limited and minor. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Vaughn Walker
Thanks for your tenacity on continuing to appropriately apply BLP. I had given up attempting to break through. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- The only way I will be able to accept it is to remove it from my watchlist and never speak of it again - your comments are greatly appreciated Active - I think I will return to the bar, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Honorable enforcement of BLP will include the guideline found at WP:BLP#Public figures. It's worth reading—I recommend it. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Kaveh Farrokh
Hi, and thank you for your help regarding Kaveh Farrokh. But the fact is the result of AFD was No consensus. In this case, the article should have been kept per: WP:AFD. Plus there was not an agreement in the article's talk page about redirecting the article. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 05:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good morning - your doing the right thing in starting a WP:RFC - later I will have a good look at the notability and add a comment, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have also opened an RFC. Best wishes, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 10:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please read my last comment in the Rfc. Is wikipedia a dealing company ?!!! Now that I have discovered it, the author should have his own article. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 10:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for supporting my idea. I have decided to quit the discussion. Best wishes, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 11:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, take it easy, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Lila Rose
I am not reverting, I'm making edits following edits, if you look none of them are actually reverting to the previous version. WMO 00:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, best of luck, if you want my advice you would be better staying away from the article for a few days. Off2riorob (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Overlake Christian Church
This edit you made just now to the "History" section of the Overlake Christian Church article is redundant; the same info and cite appear in the immediately preceding sentence. The mistake gives the incorrect impression that the Seattle Weekly accused the current pastor, Mike Howerton, of fault in the financial irregularity it alleged, when it didn't do so. You might like to take a look. I just wanted to get your attention re this edit; any other discussion can take place on the article's talk page. Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, a duplicate comment, I removed it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good, thanks. Please see this section of the article's talk page. I don't know whether the IPs will see it or heed the request, but please consider it as applying to you individually, as well. Give other editors a chance to weigh in (not just the IPs) rather than just editing the article to your liking without discussion consensus. To be more explicit, I'm directly asking you to stop editing the article unilaterally and to discuss the matter on the talk page to gain consensus before you continue. I'll warn the IPs more emphatically than I already have to do the same. – OhioStandard (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I had a look but I can't see the content it is small and unclear, your worthless warnings and your completely unbelievable and quite frankly laughable claims to be uninvolved are beginning to bore me. If the situation continues I will consider making a meatpuppetry report against you.Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good, thanks. Please see this section of the article's talk page. I don't know whether the IPs will see it or heed the request, but please consider it as applying to you individually, as well. Give other editors a chance to weigh in (not just the IPs) rather than just editing the article to your liking without discussion consensus. To be more explicit, I'm directly asking you to stop editing the article unilaterally and to discuss the matter on the talk page to gain consensus before you continue. I'll warn the IPs more emphatically than I already have to do the same. – OhioStandard (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)