Talk:Glenn Greenwald/Archive 3

message: This is a bit jarring just now, and reads like an essay. Is it necessary to focus on particular comments to the point of quoting them, or can these just be referenced and summarised? This should probably just be integrated with the rest of the section. I don't really see any value in saying "not much is known about his other views" either; which "other views"? General political blogger litmus tests? Chris Cunningham 18:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got bold and removed the whole "Other views" section.  There was no information in it about any other views. Steve Dufour 04:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other views" section 

message: This page has been protected due to egregious violations of our biographies of living persons policy. Under no, and I mean absolutely no, circumstances, may negative information about a living person be "sourced" to a blog. I will leave the page protected for a couple of days to ensure that this is seen, and hopefully when unprotected those editing will choose to respect this. Violators of the biographies of living persons policy are subject to blocks without warning. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That should settle things definitively here.  Are you paying attention Raphaelaarchon/71.100.1.7?  --AStanhope 05:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've blocked Raphaelaarchon/71.100.1.7 for 24 hours for sockpuppetry and 3RR violations. -- ChrisO 07:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You're missing the point here, Ralph. --AStanhope 08:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Raphaela, I hesitate to write this in fear of escalating this situation, but the accusatory comments need to stop.  I can't speak for anyone other than myself, and I'm not going to go into my own political leanings (others might guess), but I submit to you and anyone else that might be following this, that my standards (with regard to BLP) concerning inclusion (anywhere on this wiki) are fairly consistant (for instance, my edits on Ann Coulter's article: concerning (1) libel   and (2) undue weight.  For myself, I have seen these BLP standards ultimately enforced throughout wikipedia and will work with others through consensus to keep it that way (on any article, for any person, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum).  I hope your editing experiences will be more enjoyable in the future, but this particular course you've set out on is not fun for anybody.  Have an excellent day and happy editing. R. Baley 15:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raphaela isn't going to be doing any more editing any time soon. She's been repeatedly using sockpuppets and open proxy servers (now all indefinitely blocked) to post here and edit this and other articles, contributing nothing but BLP violations and angry rants. We can do without this sort of behaviour. -- ChrisO 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Wow - that last message of hers  sure was something else!  --AStanhope 03:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually made me smile.  R. Baley 04:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if nothing else, Raphaela is at least exposing open proxies for me to block, so that's a positive outcome. I have to say, if she's typical of Greenwald's political opponents he doesn't have anything to worry about... -- ChrisO 09:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection