If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on your talk page, unless you request otherwise.

Archives
2005 - 2005 - 2006 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2007 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2008 January February March April May June July August September October November December

Lauren Booth

Hello J. I'd welcome your attention to the BLP problems with this article. The editor who was originally cited for edit warring there, User:Dead-or-Red, had his block lifted but then went on to perform additional reverts, so he got blocked again by a different admin. See User talk:Dead-or-Red, where you could join the latest unblock discussion if you wish. This article struggles to reach neutrality, but BLP shouldn't be an all-purpose tool for removing political criticism. In my view, the political criticism needs to be properly sourced and not expressed with a slanted vocabulary. From the discussion on Dead-or-Red's User talk, I don't think he gets the concept of consensus. He feels that the rightness of his views justifies any number of reverts. Getting all the editors to participate on the article Talk to agree on new language for the article would be an excellent move. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to take your advice and not edit the article (bar one minor edit). Though it is still a pov mess. The only reason I started editing the article in the first place was to help it reach wiki standards, I knew (and still know) little about the women. I do not feel it ever reach a npov standing, though I would like further advice on how best to get other wiki editors to look at the article to help clean it up as much as possible. Dead-or-Red (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Rob Enderle

I was just viewing recent changes, no other involvement in the article. The removal of such a large amount of text appeared to be vandalism. The edit summary could have linked to the talk section or to the blp noticeboard discussion. Of course reversion is ok as I'm not involved, I just sought to rv what looked to an onlooker like blanking. It would be nice if someone could 'grow' the article again with WP:RS. I didn't think the content was that nasty, but I'm sure other, more positive sources exist, to create a balanced article. Sticky Parkin 00:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Dead-or-Red

The editor in question actually reverted 6 times, and did the first 4 logged out to disguise his reverts, then dissembled about doing so. I'm tempted to block for even longer, but in any event am certainly not going to reduce the block. As for the BLP issues, I haven't looked at them closely, but the sources in question appeared to be reliable, and 3 respected editors did not consider there to be BLP issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. Happy editing! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)