User talk:Halil1

July 2010
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. --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I added well-referenced information. Please do not remove information simply because it presents a different opinion from your own, and then falsely claim that the information was unreferenced or poorly referenced to try to defend your actions.  Halil1 (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you continue to editwar BLP violating material into articles you will may end up banned or blocked. If you want to become a constructive editor, please have a look at WP:TUTORIAL and WP:POLICIES. Thanks, Verbal chat  18:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please threaten someone who is not going to be intimidated by you. I really don't care for your power trip Verbal. Halil1 (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Before people get overly heated up, can I please ask that you (Hailil1) take an in-depth read of our policy on biographical material? In particular, take a look at the section on misuse of primary sources (such as court transcripts). The policy reads: "Do not use trial transcripts, other court records, or other public documents to support assertions about a living person, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material" (emphasis in original). Your edits are citing a trial transcript, and thus violate the policy. If you need help or have questions about it, please let me or other editors know. You can also ask for outside opinions at the biographical articles noticeboard if you'd like, but this site's policies are pretty clear in this instance. MastCell Talk 18:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My reference was not for a trial transcript. It was for a court opinion. A trial transcript is a verbatim record of court proceedings. A court opinion is a legal decision. Halil1 (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've pointed out at ANI, I expect that Halil1, like other editors, hasn't read the court transcript, but has instead read an attack against Barrett that misrepresents the court findings. Such attacks are not reliable sources, and their use is a violation of WP:BLP.
 * If you're interested in learning the facts of the situation that led up to the current consensus, please start a discussion. --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't tell me what I have or haven't read. I have read the actual case. I have read WP policy. I don't read attacks against Barrett. Please keep your opinion on what I do or do not know to yourself Ronz, Verbal and MastCell. What is it with these power trips and attempts to intimidate? This is a free site where people are supposed to work together and I'm being threatened and told I'm ignorant. Lovely way to encourage people to work with you or to respect you. Halil1 (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my assumption was incorrect. I qualified my statement.  I had hoped you would take it in good faith.
 * Would you like to start discussing the current consensus? --Ronz (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's hard to take so many personal attacks in good faith. I decline to work with you because I do not believe you or Verbal would respect anything I say or allow anyone to say something that you disagree with. I do not believe that the full intent of Wikipedia being open to people working together can be followed based upon the comments all of you have left for me today. Please continue to publish your viewpoint since it is the only one you seem to allow. It is nice of you to offer to have a discussion, but again, I doubt your sincerity and willingness to work together. Halil1 (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm respecting what you have say here and now. I'm happy to remove or rewrite anything that's even remotely disrespectful.  However, if you're not willing to assume good faith in others, then there's little to be done. --Ronz (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's hard to assume good faith when you weren't showing it before. It's hard to assume good faith when you were vilifying me. It's hard to assume good faith because you've made so many false assumptions already about me. It's hard to assume you'll exercise good faith when you haven't prior to now. It's hard to assume you'll exercise good faith now when you wouldn't respect what I had to say here before now. I'm sure you can understand my lack of faith. Any reasonable person would feel the same way. Halil1 (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a clue what you're referring to. I've interacted with you when you edited with another ip or account?  Care to indicate which? --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no clue what you're talking about. I have one account. I don't even know how to use an ip. Halil1 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Night Ronz. Feel free to make up some more stories about what I don't know and then falsely claim your honest and reasonable. I'm sure someone will come along who cares and enjoys all these attacks. Personally, I don't care. You're anonymous. I'm anonymous. Unlike you, I do more than sleep, work, and spend my time here (saw your history - quite enlightening). Feel free to write whatever you want in the endless hours you'll be here. I'll catch up when I have the time. Cheerio. Halil1 (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me be clearer. I believe I've been respectful to you every time I've interacted with you, which consists of my comments here plus this. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)