Talk:Lord Bloody Wog Rolo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

old comments[edit]

This page is still under construction and may take a few days for me to complete. Rozziew (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have citations for all the information I have included in this article and will include them, once I work out how to add citations. I thought to complete the main body of the article first and then work out how to add the references later. Rozziew (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military service in Argentina[edit]

I believe that the following phrase in the article is wrong:

  • After his National Service obligation was served as a para-trooper in the Argentine Air Force, ...

as the paratroops are part of the Argentine Army, not the Air Force. As such, Ive also removed the category related to Air Force personnel.
Regards,DPdH (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe you may be correct. I know Rolo was definately a para-trooper because he told me himself. The Sydney Morning Herald article says Air Force but newspapers can get it wrong. If Rolo was still with us, I could simply ask him - we'll just have to assume it was the Army. Thanks for caring...
Rozziew (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spouse[edit]

[defamatory comments removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.225.199 (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rozziew (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC) the comments here are opinions only. The article does have many citations from published sources.[reply]

how is saying you divorced him defamatory? isnt withholding that information so you are perceived to be his widow defamatory to you and your current husband's self-respect?124.182.142.3 (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reference 18[edit]

i just noticed the author of this article references a youtube video that she is also the author of and the video doesnt support the claim it is referencing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.238.235 (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rozziew (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC) video shows many photos which were taken from newspaper articles which have not individually been published on the net - as the articles were published prior to widespread use of internet[reply]

photos from the article but is the content of the article readable? considering you have ALL of his pictures and scrapbooks and other documents why dont you stop being lazy and cite them properly? WP:YOUTUBE124.182.142.3 (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over will[edit]

legal proceedings are currently being initiated by Rolo's son Robin against his ex wife (Rosalyn Chapman)due to her claiming the entire estate based on an outdated will that was written before the children were born and before Rolo and Rosalyn were divorced, for the last 5 years she refused to show anyone a copy and claimed that it specifically disinherited the children and left everything to his ex-wife — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.142.3 (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


why does this valid and factual contribution keep getting deleted without explanation? is that not constitute vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.142.3 (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources on this (see WP:SOURCES) - newspaper or magazine articles, something like that, which you can cite? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i was in the process of adding a reference when my contribution was vandalised. an interview with myself, Robin Tapier, the son of the man this article is about
Is this interview published somewhere that you can link to? You may want to read WP:PRIMARY since it sounds appropriate to this case. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes but now i am too scared to add it as ive been told by someone named "anderson" who might possibly be an alternate account of rozziew (Rosalyn Chapman nee Anderson)that the next time i edit the article my IP will be blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.142.3 (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You got that notice mostly because you kept removing content. If you have something that meets the Sources guidelines, you can either discuss it on the talk page first (to get some WP:CONSENSUS), or ask for help from more experienced editors - you might try WP:TEAHOUSE. Best of luck. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea... i deleted a whole bunch of content in a fit of frustration because somebody kept deleting my contributions to the article without explanation, is there anything wrong with the "Controversy over will" section that i added that would cause it to be deleted without explanation within 5 mintues of being posted while im looking up my citation?124.182.142.3 (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so i re-added this section with references and it got deleted again.. no explanation... can somebody help me out? why is my contribution being vandalised?124.182.142.3 (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing threats of legal action violates WP:LEGAL and will be reverted Andreclos (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no threats are being published, it is a statement of fact, and i know who you are, stop using alternate accounts and debate this one on one, you know youre in the wrong and just want it to look like youre 3 different people, but thanks for finally having the balls to explain why you delete other peoples contributions.. can you please identify the part where anybody is threatening anything? can you please point out any factual errors?124.182.142.3 (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i dont think WP:LEGAL even applies in this case you muppet, thats about dispute resolution in the wiki community. GROW A BRAIN124.182.142.3 (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and while im at it why did you remove the part that says you divorced him in 1996? to make it appear as if you were still married when he died and you are a widow? what would your husband think?124.182.142.3 (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you would be correct, but can you also see that i am contributing to the article and she is vandalising my contributions, for example deleting the fact that they divorced to appear to still be married to the man? i do not wish to engage in any edit warring, i just dont want the page to be biased.. she also deleted the atheist category i added and reported it as vandalism.. i appreciate your take on this matter124.182.142.3 (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i am unsure as to Andreclos being an alternate identity. I have copied my comment above to Anderson request for page protection on the article. I would suggest that you now sit back and allow the cogs within wikipedia Admin to start turning and check the issue out. Go have a cup of tea and calm down. Using Wikipedia to resolve or inflame a family dispute is not a good idea and if my assumption are correct then neither of you should edit the article, Richard Harvey (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, freeze the article as it was 24 hours ago and leave it. Nothing is gained by bringing a family dispute onto Wikipedia. For the record, I am not an alternate identity of anyone. Andreclos (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
what parts of the article constitute the family dispute?124.182.142.3 (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
andreclos, instead of demanding the article be reverted to how it was 24 hours ago despite the protection (you obviously have the same agenda as Rosalyn Chapman) why dont we discuss it here as suggested, instead of trying to continue the editing war?124.182.142.3 (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what about if instead of the phrase 'appropriating Rolo's entire estate', i change it to 'claiming to be the sole benefactor of the will' i can see how 'appropriating' might be seen to insinuate she took his stuff without any authority and be a personal attack and am willing to concede on this matter, can you please identify what other parts of the article you have a problem with as its going to be a slow 3 days if you refuse to cooperate in the discussion, im not trying to waste anybodys time, you are the one with the grievance not me124.182.142.3 (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

andreclos accuses me of vandalism at the same time vandalising my contributions[edit]

for example, i added the category 'atheists' which was removed with the reason given as 'revert vandalism' how is that vandalism? i am being bullied by someone with a vendetta against me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.142.3 (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

does the person who made the revert care to comment? or just going to revert the article in 3 days without discussion?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.142.3 (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bugaup.org/publications/Billbored_21.pdf billbored, the un-official newsletter of B.U.G.A.U.P. issue 21, april 1985 "Rolo, who describes himself as "an authordox atheist""

wheres androclos? i want to know how she interprets this contribution to be vandalism??124.182.142.3 (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

I don't know who is right or wrong. So it's protected for three days in this version. Now discuss it here and stop accusing each other of vandalism. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting the article. To see the rights and wrongs, just look at the edit history, it speaks for itself. I have simply been trying to preserve the article as it was, free from personal attacks and publication of threats of legal action which have no place on Wikipedia. Andreclos (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you from me too, Andreclos why arent you answering any of my queries im putting to you on the talk page? youre so sure of yourself and closed minded to any alternative point of view124.182.142.3 (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
where are the personal attacks? who have i threatened legal action againt?? obvious alternate account is obvious 124.182.142.3 (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you claim im threatening legal action whilst i have stated that it has already been initiated.. what insider knowledge do you have to infer that my edits are a personal attack on anyone and who am i attacking? you claim you are not an alternate account of anyone yet you refuse to discuss the issue at all and only want it to be reverted to how it was before anyone that isnt rozziew/YOU contributed to the article?? please reply so we can sort this issue if you are indeed a neutral 3rd party, but i suspect you are just gunna wait out the 3 days and vandalise my contributions without explanation am i wrong?? im more than willing to discuss the issue so we can have an un-biased wikipedia article that only states the facts124.182.142.3 (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your memory is obviously _very_ short: "legal proceedings are currently being initiated by Rolo's son Robin" is a legal threat with no evidence to back it up, hence WP:OR, WP:LEGAL. "...Rolo's ex-wife(Rosalyn Chapman nee Anderson)due to her appropriating Rolo's entire estate" is a personal attack with no foundation and no source, hence WP:OR, WP:PERSONAL. Please stop this personal vendetta of amateurish edits or you will find yourself banned permanently. If you wish to edit articles, please provide sources for your information, per WP:OR and please avoid legal and personal attacks. Nobody is interested in your family disputes, so keep them where they belong, off Wikipedia. Please feel free to continue your wild accusations and plaintive queries here, I have wasted enough time on this. Andreclos (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
my memory is fine, i know what i added to the article i just dont see how it is a legal threat and not a statement of fact, so youre saying details of legal proceedings arent allowed on wikipedia? i did put a reference up... you are saying i have no foundation to say she appropriated his estate based on an outdated will, what insider knowledge do you have to be able to say there is no foundation?? so lets put this aside and why dont you be constructive and suggest a better way to word the article instead of dictating to wikipedia what people on the internet are interested in? is the word "appropriated" offensive to you? can you suggest an alternative term that you dont consider a personal attack? thanks for your input on the matter124.182.142.3 (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum. Andreclos (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, i asked for constructive criticism on how the statement of fact can be worded so as not to offend you as a personal attack or a "threat" of legal action, not a meaningless gibberish post124.182.142.3 (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ask away, but I really suggest you read WP:OR, WP:LEGAL and WP:PERSONAL. WP:OR in particular means that it is unhelpful to simply add your own opinions or the results of your own unverified research (that's what the 'original' in WP:OR means. If you add such unverified opinions, they will get reverted. If you want to publish family attacks or any libellous material you please, feel free to put up your own website, but if you do it here on Wikipedia, it will get reverted. Again, please read the polices referred to and try and understand them. Without such an understanding you are wasting everyone's time, including your own, and showing everyone how you are unable to read and understand the policies. Your loss. Andreclos (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i have read wp:legal and i simply believe your interpretation of it is wrong, your put downs are not helping the matter at all, can you please quote the section of wp:legal you believe states that the assertion that there are legal proceedings between two people of relevance to the article is against the rules? if i were to put in the article 'bitch give me my cut of the estate or ill sue your ass' then that would be a threat of legal action, Robin Tapier is sueing Rosalyn Chapman (nee Anderson) and i am merely reporting that fact, i know this is only the talk page but can you please act more mature instead of insinuating that i cant read and have short term memory problems?124.182.142.3 (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You still obviously have not read WP:OR. When you say "Robin Tapier is sueing Rosalyn Chapman", how do you know this except by original research? You have provided no evidence of this fact that anyone else can verify. Again, please read the policies and stop wasting our time and yours. Andreclos i(talk) 13:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
youre getting ahead of yourself here, you havent addressed the issued i raised in my last post in relation to wp:legal and you want to move on to wp:or, as soon as i explain how im not in violation of wp:or and ask you to explain how i am are you going to ignore that comment and move on to wp:personal instead of trying go in circles to give me the run around for 3 days so you can revert the article why dont we tackle one section at a time and solve the issue? what is 'obvious' to your convoluted mind might be quite abstract to someone with a different interpretation of the rules124.182.142.3 (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is ho hum again, read the policies. Go ahead, feel free to have the last word and feel clever. Andreclos (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want quite the opposite of the last word, i am putting questions to you and you are avoiding them with the skill and finesse of a high-ranking politician124.182.142.3 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
im sorry that you feel that you are wasting your time on an uneducated plebian124.182.142.3 (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Andreclos Your interpretaion of WP:LEGAL and WP:PERSONAL are incorrect, those policies relate to an action by one editor on another editor within the activities of Wikipedia, not to the reporting of a legal action between two entities within an article. 124.182.142.3 A statement about a legal action should be verifiable by a supporting reference. That reference must be able to be seen, read and confirmed by readers of an article. Stating the comment was made in a newsmedia interview is allowable, however a link to the actual article, in readable form, by readers of the article, should accompany that statement. You have not supplied that link so the statement is not proven and would be tagged for a citation by any editor. If that was not produced within a reasonable amount of time then the statement would be removed by any editor. in its current form the statement is Original research. On a more personal note could you please tone down your profanities and colourful language? It is not constructive and is offensive to some readers, especially those outside Australia! Richard Harvey (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i do apologise for my language, please understand how frustrating it was trying to explain wp:legal to Andreclos and having it fly completely over his head and how frustrating his irrational and stubborn behaviour in the context of the situaton was. would it be unreasonable to ask that the 'controversy over will' paragraph be re-added with a citation required tag and i be afforded the reasonable opportunity to produce one that i was originally denied, i believe that was the point this all turned into a shitstorm editing-war. thanks Richard Harvey it is refreshing finally being able to speak to someone rationally124.182.142.3 (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
also citations 2-10, 13 and 17 do not have links to the cited article, just curious as to why what was number 18 was singled out of the 11 references without links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.142.3 (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
also would anybody be willing to try to explain to Andreclos the difference between vandalism and my edits to the article?124.182.142.3 (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invented citation[edit]

There is an obviously false citation in the last paragraph Interview with Robin Tapier". The West Australian. 2012-08-31. No link has been provided to the alleged article, and a search of the paper's web site does not find any articles on Robin Tapier. It has been included in a paragraph which is an obvious violation of several Wikipedia policies. Since the article is protected I can't remove it. Could a passing sysadmin please remove this nonsense? Andreclos (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hey look, the internets not going anywhere, the article was frozen for 3 days so the issue could be discussed, no need to get sand in your vagina and cry to a sysadmin because it was frozen in a version of the article that is not to your liking, the person that froze it knew what they were doing, how come youre not worried about citations 2-10, 13 and 17 to which no links have been provided either? obvious alternate account is obvious124.182.142.3 (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
citation 2 is 'obviously' fake too, the daily mirror isnt even a real paper.. but seriously it became the daily telegraph in 1996 and a quick search of that paper's web site does not find any articles on "monarchy man told to get out"... obvious invented citation from obvious alternate account is obvious... can anyone else comment on why androclos is biased against my contributions and is ignoring the 10 other references without links? Since the article is protected i can't remove them. could a passing sysadmin please remove this nonsense?124.182.142.3 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


occupation[edit]

i changed the occupation from greenie socialist and shameless agitator (which arent even real fucking occuptions, just goes to show the level of intelligence of the people im arguing with) to electrical engineer and alarmist and got accused of vandalism

http://www.smh.com.au/news/obituaries/activist-used-humour-as-his-best-defence/2008/01/16/1200419882255.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Sydney Morning Herald, 'Activist used humour as his best defence', January 17, 2008

"LORD Bloody Wog Rolo was an electronics engineer who made his living as an auto-electrician and installed car alarms. He called himself a professional alarmist"

was a citation really required for his occupation, i didnt think so but heres one to keep you shitbag hair-splitters (and hair-splitting alias's) happy124.182.142.3 (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce[edit]

i added the fact that Rolo and Rosalyn got divorced and got accused of vandalism, im more than willing to admit when i am wrong, the divorce was in 1991, not 1996


http://www.smh.com.au/news/obituaries/activist-used-humour-as-his-best-defence/2008/01/16/1200419882255.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Sydney Morning Herald, 'Activist used humour as his best defence', January 17, 2008

"The lord and his lady were married for six years" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.142.3 (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

andreclos is either an alt of rozziew or her husbands account[edit]

Look here: http://www.atherfield.com/location.shtml and you will see Graham and Rosalyn Chapman live in Tasmania and a quick peruse through the rest of the site shows they own alpacas, look on andreclos's talk page and you will see comments about the Brighton bypass (in Tasmania) and alpacas... who here can put two and two together?106.71.13.132 (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough[edit]

As I have told you repeatedly - there was no estate. Rolo's assets did not cover the cost of his funeral. The will you refer to was never used because there was nothing of value except his van. Before he passed away, Rolo transferred the registration of the van into my name and told me to do with it as I saw fit because he knew I would always look after you and your brother financially - which I have done. Since there are two of you, how was I supposed to distribute the van - I cannot cut it down the middle and you insisted you did not want it to be sold. I have also told you you can take possession of the van - it is here whenever you want it. Alex says you can have his share. We are both requesting tt you stop these attacks. Rolo would not have wanted this. Wikipedia is bigger than you or me and whatever edits you make will be evaluated by other editors. If you can supply citations you will have no problems. That Rolo was an atheist is fairly well known and you have supplied a citation. Rolo and I were married for 8 years - we were divorced in 1993. Rolo had a badge on his Royal Attire which said "I am a shameless agitator" - he asked me to write on his headstone "Here lies Lord Bloody Wog Rolo - Greenie, Socialist and Shameless Agitator". I did not reverse any of your edits - I did not know about them until today.

  • note: This will be my first, last and only post on this subject. Rozziew (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


you won't reply to me in real life but you will on here? Is this directed at me or the internet? This isn't the place for this but seeing as you are making it the place, you do remember that you gave Alex his share of the money from the sale of the truck shortly after Rolo's death and I so stoically disapproved of the sale of the truck that I got kicked out of the family home? You stole framed pictures I had of my father off my bedroom walls and had the cheek to offer me a photo-copy of YOUR favourite picture of him and you honestly had no idea why I wanted you to shove it and your YouTube videos and your funeral reception up your ass and now that I am on the opposite side of the country you say I can have the truck? An executor of the estate is supposed to evenly divide the assets among the relatives of the deceased, YOU are not a relative, you gave Alex 1 third of the estimated value of the truck (should have been half) and tricked me into thinking I'd been disinherited by my father for the last 5 years... you are a horrible horrible person106.71.40.173 (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
regarding his headstone, why didn't you honour that request? 5 years later and he's still got the plastic cross the council put up after they buried him, the man was an atheist and he has a temporary cross as his headstone for 5 years, is it really that much of a surprise to you that your actions disgust me? How would you feel if you were in my situation??106.71.40.173 (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ENOUGH IS DEFINITELY ENOUGH - An article talk page is designed for editors to discuss how to improve an article. You have both digressed from that and are using it to work out your personal family problems, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Cease this bickering and contact each other away from this medium to resolve your differences. When the article is unlocked tomorrow, would both of you, please refrain from editing the article, in a voluntary manner, due to both of you having a Conflict of interest in the article topic, otherwise it will be necessary to involve an Admin with a request for an enforced site ban. Richard Harvey (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i did not wish to discuss any of the matters rozziew raised in her comments above, i have not added a single bit of information without a reference. Androcles (who is either rozziew or her husband) deleted my reply to her and left her comments, i agree that they are digressions but will not allow my comments to be deleted if hers are allowed to stay, androcles has a clear conflict of interest in doing so, a neutral third party should delete the comments above from both parties if they find it appropriate but if androcles deletes my reply whilst leaving her comments i will restore them again124.182.142.3 (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
also i do agree to refrain from editing the article voluntary but at the same time if rozziew, anderson or andreclos do not follow suit i will undo any and all edits done by them (i will however limit myself to ONLY undoing them) i humbly request that if these users wish to make any changes they request them here on the talk page and i will do the same.124.182.142.3 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to agree to that, but if the section on will controversy, or any reference to his ex-wife is re-added then I will remove it. If any edits are made that contravene WP:OR or WP:BLP then I will remove those. Other than that, I am happy to see the article stay as it is. Andreclos (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

request for removal of personal defamatory material[edit]

There is an awful lot of private and personal (and for the most part untrue) stuff about me in this talk page - is there any chance that it could be removed. I can't see it serving any useful purpose except to humiliate me. I am sure that the founders of wikipedia did not intend for it to be used as a tool of harassment Rozziew (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not - sigh... I used to enjoy writing articles for wikipedia - I've donated money every time the founders made an appeal - what a shame that something that used to be so useful, has now made it possible for people to use for blackmail... "do what I want or I will vilify you on wikipedia" Rozziew (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request[edit]

This article, but not the talk page, is currently protected for one more day. I would like to ask that either the entire article and talk page be permanently deleted, or that both the article and talk page be reverted to before 1st September and then fully protected. The reason for the request is the persistent posts from serial vandal whose latest IP address is 106.71.40.173. He has been blocked twice but switches IP addresses. Examination of the talk page will show from the object and style of the attacks that it is the same person. The attacks are libellous and have included publishing the location of Rosalyn Chapman, which puts her at risk. This type of attack must be prevented. In this case the person in question is not willing to stop the attacks even after being blocked. Andreclos (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This person is notable.--Anderson - What's up? 04:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if we can't delete it, can we please revert the article and talk page to before 1st September and then protect article and talk page. Look at the posts since then frome the IP addresses - they are all the same person and many of them are libellous and identify living people. The poster has had several IP addresses blocked, most recently 106.71.40.173 a few hours ago - see talk page history and User:106.71.40.173. This person does not negotiate and should not be permitted to publish libellous information and identify people's locations. Andreclos (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also please note that the article was protected AFTER libellous information was added by a serial vandal who has been blocked at least twice since then for persistent vandalism and harassment. That means we can't remove that libellous information. Could you please remove the last paragraph. Andreclos (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, So i can't remove it. --Anderson - What's up? 05:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll pursue it with admins. Andreclos (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
where is the libel? why should it be reverted to a previous state if i have references for all information i have added? i have had one ip address blocked for incivility, not vandalism... i have done NOTHING BUT try to negotiate... i have not published any personal information, i linked to a website i found after doing a google search for 'rosalyn chapman' to demonstrate that andreclos is rozziew or her husband, whoever made the website 'www.atherfield.com' published the information58.108.15.173 (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
see Swatjester is on the job, so I've every confidence this will get straightened out. Dlohcierekim 19:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

I've reverted a massive amount of uncited information, as well as a BLP violation against the subject's family. The behavior of editors on this article is a disgrace, to be honest. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 11:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for leaving it in the atheist category and for leaving his occupation as a real occupation, can you please change the date of divorce from 1996 to 1991 as ive referenced above that they were married in 1985 and the marriage lasted for 6 years... also the section 'controversy over will' did have a citation, reword it however you please but i believe it is as relevant to the article as anything else124.182.142.3 (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The category thing was not intentional -- I don't know enough about them to mess with them, so I left them alone. As for the controversy over will section, I took that part out despite the citation as a BLP issue for the living members of the family. It does not have any real relevance to the article, it only serves to create drama. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lord_Bloody_Wog_Rolo&oldid=1203771073"