User talk:SlipperyMoney

Please stop vandalising the Daphne Caruana Galizia page by removing referenced material from it. Wikipedia does not exist just to reflect your own personal view of the world. Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's editorial policies here: Wikipedia:Five_pillars. Your continued disruptive behaviour and vandalisation may result in your eventual banning. Qattusu (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

You seem to have misunderstood the aims of Wikipedia - these articles aren't intended to reflect reality as you would like it to be seen, but as it is understood by the public. Your continued attempts to whitewash the Daphne Caruana Galizia article are a flagrant example of POV, dissimulation and blatant agenda pushing. Reconsider, and use the talkpage - you haven't used it yet, nor do you seem to respond to talkpage messages. This leads me to believe you may be nothing more than a sock, or indeed, somehow personally invested in the article. In which case, you should take your problem to an Admin, or just wakeup to the fact that what goes around comes around, and you can't censor people. Least of all, online. STOP VANDALISING WIKIPEDIA. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion[edit]

Please take your time you are new here, I have nominated the article for a deletion discussion and the community wil now discuss, you are welcome to join in there and vote for keep ot delete, for the time being it would be better to leave the article as is, please feel free to discuss here or on my talkpage, also you are clearly involved with the subject of the article and it would be better if you did not edit it for the time being, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can also vote although it is not exactly a vote...you add this to your comment

Delete- and then your comment or you can also add Strong delete. Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Off2riorob. SlipperyMoney (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user Notpietru is clearly involved with the subject. Personal motivation and agenda is implicit in his comments on the revision log, e.g. "Since this individual seems to write tabolids, there's a certain ironic justice in having her Wiki article described as one!" SlipperyMoney (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know... there is clear partisan..ship..editing, I do support your position quite strongly actually as the content is controversial and weakly cited, and there is a case for removing most of it right now, butlets see how it goes, clearly there are two sides to every story. Best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, let it roll for a few days is the best to see how it is going, it will last at least seven days. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. One more thing: the fact that the article has been turned into the personal blog of one agenda-driven editor, without any resistance until now, is proof in itself of the insignificance and non-notability of the subject. SlipperyMoney (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from User:Thivierr on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Daphne_Caruana_Galizia: "Whenever problematic BLP content is removed, it should only be re-added, when it can properly be sourced, and properly reflects those sources. Generally, we err on the side of exclusion... Removal of problematic content, is not vandalism."

I am regretting my last edit to the article, but there is also the situation that says it is bad faith to delete content from an article that is up for AFD, it does have one citation, there is a case for removing that whole issue as poorly cited controversial content in a bio of a living person, but I have trimmed a lot of the attacxk out and nominated it....I would not again replace it if you removed it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. SlipperyMoney (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, please take my advice for a few days and allow the community to assess the situation without further comment, stay cool. Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Qattusu has reverted, adding what he says is a fourth source - though this source is a site owned and operated by the Malta Labour Party. The site does not list its editor or reporting staff and its address is the same as that of the Malta Labour Party. SlipperyMoney (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, step back as I said, let the community discuss, if after a few days you feel the need to comment then do so then just my advice. Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ani Notice.[edit]

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. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]