User talk:Philmillhaven

The additions that you have reinseted about mandy being a liar are inflamatory and don't belong in the lede or anywhere else in the biography for that matter. Please don't reinsert them. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

This is not the place to add unbalanced points of view to what are Biographies of living people, please have a read of WP:BLP (Off2riorob (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

and for adding things to the first para, or the lede, please see, Lead_sections (Off2riorob (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

I would say that if you look at [[WP:BLP}} that your comments are of no value at all in the lede or anywhere else. You don't like the man that is clear, for example there is no need to incvlude all the 6 or 7 references to mandy being called a liar. One would be enough, two at the most. All pototicians have to lie, it is part of their job, and the fact that people from the other side of the sphere try to put them down is normal but here on wikipedia is not a place to grandstand your opinions about anyone, the page is a biography of a living person. Have you ever read a biography? Standing there going ...liar liar liar is more worthy of the infants playground. if you had looked at the biography of living people you would have seen this...

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

I ask you again to take out this sensationalist tabloid slur, In your desire to portray this person in a negative light you have failed to consider the quality of the article at all. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

It might look good on Guido Fawkes' blog, but please stop it. 81.129.207.110 (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Liar liar again. I see you have readded this opinioneated negative stuff about Mandy, I have reverted, I know you don't like him but adding opinionated stuff like this does not improve the article, I am available to discuss it on his talkpage if you want, bold, revert, discuss cycle. Thanks Off2riorob (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

controversial
Your edit summary is quite amusing today, you can see full well that is not true.....

I think Off2riorob accidentally deleted this when reverting other sections currently under discussion on the Talk page.

Please don't put the mandelson is a controversial politician in the lede like that, it is so opinionated. I don't think he is any more controversial than your average run of the mill, would you say he is more or less controversial than George Galloway ? This reminds me of the bad old days when liar liar was in the lede. Try an experiment and see if you like it, instead of adding negative material about mandelson try adding something positive. Off2riorob (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Off2riorob,
 * I have given my thoughts on the discussion page about Peter Mandelson. I hope we can reach a consensus but in the meantime please note that you are getting your way further to your second (or was it third?) revert, since the contributions I made are currently not included. Please respond to the arguments I have made because for the time being my work is effectively deleted and of course that's not as I want things.
 * Thanks Phil —Preceding unsigned comment added by :Philmillhaven (talk • contribs) 10:22, 4 :September 2009 (UTC)


 * The more I look at that section the controversies section the more I dislike it, it is a magnet for people to add whatever attack pieces they can cite. I am going to try and rewrite the section, well, remove the whole section and redistribute the stories throughout the article, I notice that the robinson story and accusation of liar is already in another section sdo does not need repeating, if you want to add anything to the article, considering your dislike of the subject, please try to remember NPOV. Off2riorob (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I look forward to seeing your amended version. So long as all verifiable facts are in there I am relaxed about where they appear in the article. As an aside, we are enjoying a useful discussion here on my Talk page. I was therefore concerned to see that you chose to delete the comment I left on your Talk page. Would you mind please explaining why you did that?


 * Finally, I do not dislike the subject under question. I just happen to think he is a) a liar and b) had conversations about al-Megrahi.Philmillhaven (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * All political figures have to lie it is in the nature of politics, David Cameron is a liar, Gordon brown is one too, the people are not ready to hear the awful truth. I moved the conversation here to keep it all in one place, if it bothers you I will happily replace your comment on my talk, I did not do it to offend you. All politicians have chats about this and that in private and the press like to comment that they think this and that but those press speculations are not worthy of inclusion here.Off2riorob (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * All political figures were born on a certain date and do things like stand for election but we don't omit these facts because it is true of all politicians. If you are right about David Cameron and Gordon Brown being liars then you should amend their biographies accordingly using reliable sources.Philmillhaven (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)