User talk:Westeros1994

3rr

Just a note about the 3-revert-rule; there is a "bright line" rule having to do with the frequency of edit reverts on one article: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours." You are very close to being blocked for your reverts at Jay Maisel. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the reverts themselves or anything. I'm just making sure you are aware of wp:3rr if you aren't already. Thanks!! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Maisel

You keep adding a POV tag to this article, but I don't see how there is a POV issue. You use language on the talk page like "these new editors are just trying to drag the article into the gutter" (this one is somewhat ironic, considering that your reply to the response included a link to AGF!) and "Wikipedia is not a platform to defame Jay Maisel." But you don't seem to ever explain why there is a POV issue. Perhaps it seems obvious to you. I don't understand it, so would you please humor me and spell it out on the discussion page? Thank you, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post a more in-depth response on the talk page later on, but generally the article was about Jay Maisel's photography career until June 23rd, when Andy Baio, a somewhat well known online figure, posted on his blog about his legal wranglings over the Kind of Blue / Kind of Bloop album covers. After that the image comparison (which does not fit into the article at all, as it is written now) and a bunch of quotes from Baio's blog were posted in the article. Take a look at the article history and you can get a good idea of what is going on. I don't think the image comparison would fit into the article unless someone lengthened it extensively -- right now it's only a couple of paragraphs long. Westeros1994 (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right; I think I'm aware of most or all of this. My question is, what is the POV issue? Please stop adding the POV tag without explaining this on the talk page first. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales

Hi - It makes no difference which section you want to add it to - your addition imo gives undue weight to a minor issue in Wales wikipedia contributions. Please seek consensus on the talkpage for its inclusion thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outing

Even when conflict of interest is obvious, please don't make guesses or assertions as to the personal identity of other Wikipedia editors. They have to be removed and make work for oversighters. It is fine to point out conflict of interest using edits as examples, just don't "name names." Also, try to be less insulting, accusing another user of having a Napoleonic complex is unlikely to be a portal to a constructive conversation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Points noted. Westeros1994 (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any evidence of a coi, take it to WP:COIN. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re [1], You're still using COI accusations as partial rationale for edits. Please stop making any mention of COI until you've familiarized yourself better with WP:COI and there is general consensus at WP:COIN that there are indeed coi problems. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to use NPOV as rationale. Check out those two links I removed (you already went to one, it was also posted as an EL) and it's immediately clear. Westeros1994 (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An honest mistake then. It would have been better to join the discussion that the other editor pointed out in his edit summary. --Ronz (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knox]

Please don't revert war this article - it was only just on a thread created - if its attacked and disrupted with guilty innocent POV it won't stay editable for very long - please go and edit the trial article and leave the POV out of the BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't POV, it was a direct quote from the appeal judge. The article would be improved if it had a quote like that from the original trial judge, and perhaps some from Italian and American elected officials. Remember to WP:AGF. Westeros1994 (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, as far as I know, there is no trial article. Westeros1994 (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Knox_and_Sollecito_trial_and_appeals

That's just a subsection of a separate article. Westeros1994 (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about that. Its irrelevant to your desired addition to the lede of Knox's biography. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"please go and edit the trial article" -- you are the one who brought it up. Westeros1994 (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't following the talk page discussion -- please do that. I no longer think that the lead is the appropriate place for it. Westeros1994 (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't replace it without consensus on the talkpage - multiple experienced contributors are objecting to it. Please don't assume bad faith. Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Angel investor

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. [2] --Ronz (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From reference 12: "Rose, a fast talker with a keen eye for detail..." Westeros1994 (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're getting at, and I suggest you drop it. BLP is not a policy to try to WP:GAME. --Ronz (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this totally unsupported accusation a personal attack (WP:NPA). Westeros1994 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way. How about we take a break from this? --Ronz (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Westeros1994 (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

This is not a personal attack, and your calling it one is likely to exacerbate an otherwise calm situation (as evidenced by the following edits). You need to tread carefully with WP:BLP articles, especially contentious ones like Amanda Knox. -- samj _in ^out 12:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. That was a personal attack. Westeros1994 (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

add templates

Hi - when you add templates to articles please state on the talkpage what the problems are so that the beneficial aspects of the templates can be addressed, adding templates without etalkpage explanations of the issues is what is considered - drive by templating and unexplained on the talkpage they are likely to be removed. thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish on your user page

was [[WP:CIVIL|entirely inappropriate] and has been removed. Future actions like that will lead to you being blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]