User talk:1whitedove2011

"It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness"
 * Peter Benenson, founder of Amnesty International
 * Human Rights Day ceremony on 10th December 1961.

A kitten for you!
I love you're pic of the white dove,oh and I think that we should be wiki bff's,because I just made acount just last night!

Hannah873 (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC) 

Hi Hannah. Thanks for the cat. You should feel right at home here on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you might find yourself above the maturity level of most Wikipedians.1whitedove2011 (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Susan Lindauer has been reverted. Your edit here to Susan Lindauer was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G43zl4fzDQg, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fUxVgxj0vc) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
—Tom Morris (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Susan_Lindauer
Hi - Can you please move to discussion about this article - you are replacing uncited content to a WP:BLP - this is against policy. - please do not do that - there is a discussion at the WP:BLPN about this biography please join in there thanks - Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard - also as a new user you appear to be a single purpose account in relation to this living person, WP:SPA -  if you are that living person or closely associated to them please stop editing the article and please read WP:COI - Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not her. I read her book though, and my edits weren't unsourced.
 * Do you work for the US-IC? Because you wrote a smashing press-statement for them in her BLP.  Bravo.
 * 1whitedove2011 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You rewrote the entire flipping bio.
 * Seriously - I hope you were on-the-clock for that one. DOJ is it?

1whitedove2011 (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved wikipedia editor - I don't care about a position just in regard to wikipedi policy and guidelines - the edits your making are detrimental according to wiki policy and guidelines - I suggest you make a case for your position at the noticeboard report - Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard -  Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You are such an "uninvolved editor" that you wrote a DOJ-POV article of a woman who was jailed wrongfully for four years, and libeled in the media. I read her book, and you re-wrote her entire article.  Beyond that, I wrote you a note on your talk-page twice, and you erased it.


 * Unlike you, I'm not being paid to post, and to be frank, I don't feel inclined to go "on trial" at the noticeboard, and be jackbooted at the neck, for an article that you clearly want to write on behalf of your employer. Erasing my notes on your talk page?  What a *coward* you are.
 * 1whitedove2011 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am attempting to keep the discussion in one location so that it is available for other editors to investigate and access. I don't work for the people you are claiming (I am from the united kingdom - Great Britain and my only interest in this situation is wikipedia policy and guidelines) ....


 * Ok fine then. You work for MI5 or MI6.  Whatever.  Same difference.  As you well-know, the UK intel runs under US-direction.


 * I am frankly personally offended that as such "uninvolved editor" that you wrote a DOJ-POV article of a woman who was jailed wrongfully for four years, and libeled in the media.  I read her book, and you re-wrote her entire article.  Beyond that, I wrote you a note on your talk-page twice, and you erased it.


 * and your calling me a coward is considered a personal attack here, please read - WP:NPA and don't continue with your attacking comment s or I will ask that your editing privileges are restricted, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (laughs). I am calling you what you are.  I was civilized in my note on your page, and you erased it, so I called you a coward.  Besides being a coward, you are a little ponce-boy.  (laughs)


 * You're a Brit? Fine: "What a *ponce*".  "You don't let me edit on your talk page" because you don't like people who disagree with you, and "you will cut my editing privileges" if you don't like what I say to you on my own talk page.  Yessiree.  You work for intel.  Only an intel-guy would behave like such a child - and a coward - at the same time practicing censorship and a full-stop smear-job of a woman who spent years in jail wrongfully imprisoned without access to a judge.


 * You work for the US-IC. My guess is DOJ.  You are not uninvolved.


 * Unlike you, I'm not being paid to post, and to be frank, I don't feel inclined to go "on trial" at the noticeboard, and be jackbooted at the neck, for an article that you clearly want to write on behalf of your employer. Erasing my notes on your talk page?  What a *coward* you are.
 * 1whitedove2011 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am attempting to keep the discussion in one location so that it is available for other editors to investigate and access. I don't work for the people you are claiming (I am from the united kingdom - Great Britain and my only interest in this situation is wikipedia policy and guidelines) and your calling me a coward is considered a personal attack here, please read - WP:NPA and don't continue with your attacking comment s or I will ask that your editing privileges are restricted, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BLAH BLAH BLAH. Talk to the hand.
 * I live in Ouagadougu Burkina Faso. And I've dealt with this very problem, and I've met guys just like you.  And what a coward you are.  Block me if you want. That's what a coward would do, and you are a coward - censoring, childish, ponce-y coward.    1whitedove2011 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Name calling like a child is never going to get you what you desire, well, not here anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

'''This is a serious topic. The woman was thrown in jail without trial.''' And in this serious context, you are being petulant, aka childish. That's not name-calling. That is an accurate description of your behavior. You are also being unilateral. And yeah, you probably do work for intel. Your entire set of behaviors reeks of it.  I see you drafting articles about UK magistrates. Purportedly you care about the rule of law. Well, what I read is you censoring the facts of a serious story about a woman deprived of it (the rule of law) and then behaving as-if the rule of law didn't exist. For *you* anyways.

1whitedove2011 (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't put my username in the header in an attacking accusatory manner - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You are a little child. I realize you are a grown man. But your behavior is that of a small boy. Frankly. 1whitedove2011 (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sticks and stones - this is not a playground and I suggest you raise up your discussion above personal attacks or you will find no support here at all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi - you appear to be putting my name into headers in a pointy way because I have asked yuo not to - please stop that - please read WP:TPG and keep headers neutral, please stop editing and discussing in a WP:BATTLEFIELD manner, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Toffs and ponces
Oh *do* grow-up. If I had all the time in the world (or were I sufficiently *bored* to waste the requisite 5-6 days pulling non-stop online cat-fighting), I'd go fight you at the noticeboard and win, principally because you are ridiculous, but mostly because this is, in fact, a serious issue - and because the facts presented in the prior article are, verifable - though I'm sure you'd pull 40 people "out of thin air" and give me a good 'run for my money'. That's how this place works, doesn't it? You know this far-better than I.

By the way, this is *my* talk page. You censored me on yours (which was really, really rude, by the way) so who do you think you are, coming over here and editing *mine*. (What *nerve*) 1whitedove2011 (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW, this *is*, in fact, a playground. With bullies, and ponces, and teacher's pets - the whole menagerie.  You know this *far* better than I.  So don't go wagging your finger at me.  Not after reverting my legitimate edits, then blocking me from discussing the matter with you on your talk page, and talking to me as-if you were speaking into a one-way message-distribution-system. 1whitedove2011 (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

On a more serious level
'''This is a serious topic. The woman was thrown in jail without trial.'''

That's a human rights affair, and a legal affair.

I'm sorry that *some* people are *so* thin-skinned that they *cannot tolerate* notes on *their* talk-page (not to mention *mine*) that don't shellac their *fragile* egos with cherry-butter - can't take a personal distance from a substantive affair to look at an article for what it is, i.e. a human rights matter - and a serious constitutional one, at that.

To Off2riorob: I see you drafting articles about UK magistrates.'' Purportedly you care about the rule of law. Well, what I read is you censoring the facts of a serious story about a woman deprived of it (the rule of law) and then behaving as-if the rule of law didn't exist. Perhaps it doesn't after all - at least for *you* anyways.

Best of luck to you. 1whitedove2011 (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)