User talk:Wheelfling

Truscott
Hi, regarding you desired additions to the Truscott BLP, there is a thread open about the desired addition at the BLP noticeboard here , as the article is about a living person and the addition is disputed please don't replace the content again without consensus support there for the desired addition, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi again - you seem to have ignored my earlier request to discuss on the talkpage - I have removed your addition again, it had multiple policy and guideline violations - please join in the discussion on the Talk:Carl Truscott - Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet again you have replaced the page with a page that has multiple policy and guideline violations. I reverted the page back. Attention whore (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob - Both the tone and factual basis for your comments above are of spurious and dubious derivation, as they engage in comments which call not one fact into question or dispute, but rather seek to imply that the purpose for this site and its interpretations lies squarely with your own autonomous declarations. The infliction of your name-calling in your entry of 27 September 2011 at 19:14 is neither amusing nor without bias. Obviously, you seem to have a problem with citations of individual actions and circumstances contained within a legitimate published and cited report commissioned and published by the US government as appropriate. Your attempt to "cover up" fully cited actions derived from within a report and its "findings" not only deprives the public the right to exercise free expression through citing legitimate public documents, it suggests that the entire methodology of analysis from studying and commenting on individual aspects of government reports is without merit, and perhaps even borders on "libelous"! How insidious of you to have the gravitas to even suggest such a ludicrous interjection; that neither I nor anyone else but apparently yourself have the qualifications or the outright obligation to comment on a free form of government and its own reports. Here, in the land of the free, you actually believe you can inflict arbitrary rules, name calling (your "whore" above) and borderline threats in an outlandish attempt to silence a fellow citizen from commenting on a legitimate internal affairs report regarding our own institutions. Are you subscribing to some form of overt Nazi tactics here, or just hoping that by prefacing your remark with some "welcome to Wiki..." as if you're a special user is absolute power to edit here will somehow scare this writer away? Your actions are so demeaning and borderline if not overtly tyrannical that I suggest you go back to your name calling as you did above...it is more befitting and expository of your own insidious viewpoints, since you hadn't the ability to even remotely criticize any of the facts duly cited in the DOJ report itself. Go back and read the constitution and its amendment one. I presume you can find the first amendment without a formal legal citation I presume. Your definition of "consensus" as a prerequisite to engaging in any edits or additions in this forum seems more applicable to the vote for public officials than to our precious First Amendment freedom of expression in all its glorious forms, thank God even the lowliest of individuals is still protected under that constitution! I n addition, there is a specific exemption against holding the public in contempt or libel of any kind, specifically while engaging in public discourse regarding a current or former public official acting in the realm of performing (or not) their official duties on the public’s time and dime. I suggest you study the "actual malice" exception. So take your Jan 2011 comment about removing my edits with the hollow admonition, “the addition is disputed please don't replace the content again without consensus support" and stick it way under your desk calendar. You frankly embarrass yourself holding such a not-so-subtle assault on our very way of life here in the U. S. of America. If I were to tell you I had my legs blown off in Iraq fighting for your rights here, I wouldn't presume to preface them with either the notion of Americanism as being relative to one's sacrifice, let alone your prodigious banner of removing my free speech with nary ONE specific objection to the DOJ report itself to which my comments pointed out examples contained therin and referenced. You use your own self-serving slant on this topic for the sake of argument only; without any facts to justify the removal of a single smidgen of the legitimate discourse you autonomously removed. Enough said. I do suggest you read the US Constitution sir, if you can restrain yourself from editing it yourself with some stilted unborn accusations of its lack of consensual agreement nullifying its very right to exist without your group of unnamed "elite" who bear the banner of the "real truth" high above your fellow citizens. Talk:Carl Truscott - Wheelfling (talk) 14:13, 12 Mar 2012 ( Wheelfling (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC) ) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wheelfling&oldid=481553021"