User talk:InaMaka/Archive 5
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
John McCain tax return controversy
You stated in your edit summary, "rvd wording thats violate BLP, article violates BLP". What in my edit violates the BLP policy? TheslB (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Thes1B: You re-wrote my summary with your own summary by using wording that is commentary. What follows is your version of the section and I will insert my comments on why certain things violate BLP:
- McCain refuses to release his tax returns from years prior to 2006. As he and his wife file separately, none of his wife's tax returns have been released. McCain's campaign said Cindy McCain would not release her return in "the interest of protecting the privacy" of their children. Other candidates for the U.S. presidency, including those who have children, have released their family's tax statements.[19]
- It states, "McCain refuses to release his tax returns". That is not a statement that is supported by reliable sources. You have provided one reliable source to back up the section and that source is the San Francisco Chronicle. However, the SF Chron does NOT use the words "refuses to release". Those are your words and as such they are the commentary of a Wikipedian, you, and you are not a reliable source. Also, the wording "refuses to release" is harsh and is an attack on McCain. There is NO legal requirement that McCain release his records. Also, you have removed ALL information that is balances your harsh words. I added in how much McCain paid in taxes, information that he has released, but you removed all of it. I don't know why you did, but it its removal but you makes the section look much more harsh toward McCain. The article MUST follow the standards of Wikipedia to be neutral. Your removal of valid, reliably sources information that balances out the commentary of you ("refuses to release") does NOT lead to the goal of Wikipedia of neutrality. Also, the article is slanted toward only providing negative information about the candidates. There is NO attempt to meet the avowed goal of neutrality. Your edits, and I assume that you did not do this intentionally, treat McCain the most negative light possible. At any rate, the whole article violated BLP in many, many ways and needs to be removed from Wikipedia. This discussion will be moved to the article's talk page going forward.--InaMaka (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking of BLP violations, the section you excerpted above is the product of multiple editors, not just me. When I have time, I will respond over at the talk page. This matter is not pressing (although not knowing McCain's financial conflict of interests if he were to become president would be) and another editor has commented out the section. TheslB (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- In your response, you did not deny or refute that your wording violates BLP, which it does of course ("refuses to release"). Also, you have linked to an article in Wikipedia that covers Dick Cheney's ties with Halliburton, which, of course, has NOTHING to do with Senator John McCain--so that seriously undercuts your argument. Also, you do not speak to how to create a article, with a perspective that this does, without repeatedly violating both Wikipedia policies of neutrality or BLP. As editors attempt to "fix" the article it becomes more clear each and every day that the article is severely flawed and cannot be salvaged to meet either the rules of neutrality or BLP. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Like I wrote above, when I have time I will respond over at the talk page. McCain is running for president. The issue of tax returns, the refusal to release those prior to 2006, the refusal to release Cindy McCain's returns at all, are related to the general concept of conflict of interest. Specifically, a financial conflict of interest. The wikilink goes to a section on Dick Cheney's financial conflict of interest with Halliburton corporation and the invasion of Iraq/no-bid contracts from the current administration. All of it is very troubling. The article, since it exists, should be fair and balanced on this and not seek to cover it up. Overloading the paragraph with non-controversial details about the tax returns McCain did finally release is one way to tip the balance away from giving our readership a detailed view of attacks and controversies in this campaign. TheslB (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, the Dick Cheney information has NOTHING to do with John McCain. Please do not send any more messages concerning Halliburton because it has nothing to do with the John McCain article. You wrote the section in biased fashion. I fixed it. Another editor deleted the whole section. So let's move on. But remember Halliburton in has nothing to do with McCain.--InaMaka (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Like I wrote above, when I have time I will respond over at the talk page. McCain is running for president. The issue of tax returns, the refusal to release those prior to 2006, the refusal to release Cindy McCain's returns at all, are related to the general concept of conflict of interest. Specifically, a financial conflict of interest. The wikilink goes to a section on Dick Cheney's financial conflict of interest with Halliburton corporation and the invasion of Iraq/no-bid contracts from the current administration. All of it is very troubling. The article, since it exists, should be fair and balanced on this and not seek to cover it up. Overloading the paragraph with non-controversial details about the tax returns McCain did finally release is one way to tip the balance away from giving our readership a detailed view of attacks and controversies in this campaign. TheslB (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- In your response, you did not deny or refute that your wording violates BLP, which it does of course ("refuses to release"). Also, you have linked to an article in Wikipedia that covers Dick Cheney's ties with Halliburton, which, of course, has NOTHING to do with Senator John McCain--so that seriously undercuts your argument. Also, you do not speak to how to create a article, with a perspective that this does, without repeatedly violating both Wikipedia policies of neutrality or BLP. As editors attempt to "fix" the article it becomes more clear each and every day that the article is severely flawed and cannot be salvaged to meet either the rules of neutrality or BLP. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking of BLP violations, the section you excerpted above is the product of multiple editors, not just me. When I have time, I will respond over at the talk page. This matter is not pressing (although not knowing McCain's financial conflict of interests if he were to become president would be) and another editor has commented out the section. TheslB (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep your Opinions about Dirty Tricks to Yourself
Yes, it has been regarded that Republicans did use dirty tricks in the Clinton Impeachment, and there are reliable resources that discuss it. Keep your Republican-inspired opinions- since you clearly show support for Republicans in yours edits on other pages- to yourself, or I will report you for violating Wikipedia's good faith policy as well as refusing to cooperate with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. My edits are neutral, and I also presented my statements with a "it has been regarded" theme only.Kevin j (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- No. I will not keep my opinion to myself. The dirty tricks article should not be used as your coatrack to write the history of Clinton impeachment.--InaMaka (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Getting a firm grip
Thanks for the advice, but I'm not sure why you gave it.Houstoneagle (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Undue weight
Please do not continue to introduce a child pornography conviction into the introduction, such as your edit here, as it introduces undue weight early on and provides an unfair balance for the remainder of the article. It is covered with extensive details below. This issue has been brought up at BLP/N, but as an uninvolved administrator who frequently oversees various cases there and elsewhere... seicer | talk | contribs 01:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- What uninvoloved administrator are you talking about? Also, there is no concensus there, as you proclaim. Ward's career has been ruined by his self-admitted child porn. It belongs in the lede.--InaMaka (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Me. I'm an uninvolved administrator who noted the Bernie Ward article months ago when the text was nothing more than BLP violation after BLP violation, which was taken care of through about a week's worth of editing. The policy, viewable at WP:UNDUE (and elsewhere on the page), specifically states the following,
- "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
- It's clear that you are using the introduction as nothing more than a POV-fork. To prevent further edit warring on your part, please take it to the case open at WP:BLP/N. seicer | talk | contribs 02:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- No. That is not true. You are an "involved" adminstrator. You have stated that you have an interest in the topic. You have admitted that you "noted" the Bernie Ward article months ago. Also, you have jumped to a conclusion about my motives, of which you have no idea. I'm not going to continue to edit the article because you are an admin who has an axe to grind and I know that in the world of Wikipedia admin do grind axes. I'm moving on. But before I go I'm just pointing out, for little it will do, that you: (1) are NOT an "uninvolved" admin, but a participating editor in the article, and (2) have jumped to conclusions about my motives and intent, of which you know nothing other than a what you are guessing based upon a couple of edits to Wikipedia, which, of course, is a very, very, very thin reed on which to place your incorrect assumptions, and (3) there was no "edit warring" going on other than another editor disagreed with your position and you have decided to use your admin hammer and call it "edit warring." Good day!--InaMaka (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Blah blah blah. I have no constructive reply to give, so I'll just finger-point and blame the "administrator axe." seicer | talk | contribs 02:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, and as a note to future admins and Wikipedian bigwigs, let me just point out that my edit that the admin Seicer called: (1) edit warring, (2) a POV-fork, and (3) inappropriate bias in the lede has been accepted by almost ALL of the edits of the Bernie Ward article (i.e., all expect admin Seicer) and my edit has been incorported into the lede (with appropriate stylistic changes. Since Wikipedia attempts to keep a record of how the encyclopedia is being created, I am going to keep this very exchange between myself, InaMaka, and the admin, Seicer, as a record of a admin who just simply did not like my edit (for some reason that I don't know he/she wanted to remove the FACT of Bernie Ward's child porn conviction from the lede of the Bernic Ward article) and attempted to use his admin privileges to attempt to force his version of the article down the collective throats of Wikipedia. This is a record of a clear and convincing example of administrator abuse. And for good measure once it became clear that I was NOT the only editor that wanted to have Ward's child porn conviction in the lede, the admin, Seicer, took his abuse a step further and insulted me by stating that I, InaMaka, was merely engaging in a scheme of "finger-point(ing)" and "blam(ing)" the "adminstrator axe." What gaul!!! Moreover, I responded to his insult and with a smart, witty remark and he removed my smart, witty remark from his talk page!!!! Amazing!!!--InaMaka (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Seicer has a long history of this sort of behavior - you are far from alone. And BTW, in Seicer-speak, "blah blah blah" translates to "I am clearly losing this argument, so allow me to now attack the editor in a dismissive manner." You are clearly correct on this issue. Hang in there - there are many good admins out there - you just had some bad luck here. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, and as a note to future admins and Wikipedian bigwigs, let me just point out that my edit that the admin Seicer called: (1) edit warring, (2) a POV-fork, and (3) inappropriate bias in the lede has been accepted by almost ALL of the edits of the Bernie Ward article (i.e., all expect admin Seicer) and my edit has been incorported into the lede (with appropriate stylistic changes. Since Wikipedia attempts to keep a record of how the encyclopedia is being created, I am going to keep this very exchange between myself, InaMaka, and the admin, Seicer, as a record of a admin who just simply did not like my edit (for some reason that I don't know he/she wanted to remove the FACT of Bernie Ward's child porn conviction from the lede of the Bernic Ward article) and attempted to use his admin privileges to attempt to force his version of the article down the collective throats of Wikipedia. This is a record of a clear and convincing example of administrator abuse. And for good measure once it became clear that I was NOT the only editor that wanted to have Ward's child porn conviction in the lede, the admin, Seicer, took his abuse a step further and insulted me by stating that I, InaMaka, was merely engaging in a scheme of "finger-point(ing)" and "blam(ing)" the "adminstrator axe." What gaul!!! Moreover, I responded to his insult and with a smart, witty remark and he removed my smart, witty remark from his talk page!!!! Amazing!!!--InaMaka (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Blah blah blah. I have no constructive reply to give, so I'll just finger-point and blame the "administrator axe." seicer | talk | contribs 02:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- No. That is not true. You are an "involved" adminstrator. You have stated that you have an interest in the topic. You have admitted that you "noted" the Bernie Ward article months ago. Also, you have jumped to a conclusion about my motives, of which you have no idea. I'm not going to continue to edit the article because you are an admin who has an axe to grind and I know that in the world of Wikipedia admin do grind axes. I'm moving on. But before I go I'm just pointing out, for little it will do, that you: (1) are NOT an "uninvolved" admin, but a participating editor in the article, and (2) have jumped to conclusions about my motives and intent, of which you know nothing other than a what you are guessing based upon a couple of edits to Wikipedia, which, of course, is a very, very, very thin reed on which to place your incorrect assumptions, and (3) there was no "edit warring" going on other than another editor disagreed with your position and you have decided to use your admin hammer and call it "edit warring." Good day!--InaMaka (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Previously you have expressed an interest in the Barack Obama article -- please state on the article's Talk page whether you Support or Oppose Scjessey's version:
Thanks. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Nicole Kidman
Please see the article's talk page and request for comment, and add your views. Please do not revert again, but discuss on the talk page. Continued reversions will result in a block. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Your personal point-of-view
Please keep your impolite (rude) comments off my userpage. Your edit here: passive-aggressive trolling is not appropriate. Please stop. SmashTheState (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Smash: You obviously do not know what "passive-aggressive" means because there is nothing "passive" about my comments. I made the perfectly legitimate comment that you should not add your own personal view point in an article such as what you did to the Jessica Sierra article, as you did here: False Political Statement. Now, I pointed out your inappropriate edit and you have chosen to personally attack me with the term "passive-aggressive", but of course you did not know how to use the term correctly. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You appear to be involved in an edit war. Note the 3-revert-rule, please.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Catuskoti (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Catuskoti
- Dear Admin: Please note that the above editor, Catuskoti, has only edited ONE article in his/her edit history in Wikipedia. Also, please note that Catuskoti has already violated the 3RR rule in his/her edit history of the article about Kathleen Sebelius. And finally, dear Admin, please note that Catuskoti is violating every single thing that he/she is warning about--clearly Catuskoti is NOT editing in good faith.--InaMaka (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
June 2008
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
InaMaka (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hey, I'm fine with this block. I totally deserved it. I clearly violated the 3RR rule. However, I have noticed that Catuskoti, the Wikipedian with which I was edit warring who also CLEARLY violating 3RR, did not get blocked by Scarian. Clearly there is some kind of double standard application of the rules here. I just know that next time Catuskoti decides to engage in an edit war then I will be much more quick to pull the admin trigger. Remember Catuskoti under common law every dog gets one free bite and you got yours. The get out of jail free card is now gone. You have been attempting to censor the Sebelius article of the comments of the Archbishop which are notable AND reliably sourced. You are also making the section way, way, way too long and adding an unbelievable amount of detail on Sebelius's comments on abortion, which violates undue weight. Also, you seem to know way, way, way too much about how Wikipedia works for someone who supposedly just came to Wikipedia. I must ask if you are a sockpuppet of someone else. That question need to be asked. I also noticed that your comments are filled with an uncivil attitude on top of various violations of Wikipedian rules and that will need to be addressed.--InaMaka (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No grounds for unblocking provided. Please do not use the unblock template for anything other than unblock requests. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Russian, German, French, and Spanish
Your link provided as evidence for Condoleezza's linguistic skills:
Sullivan, Andrew (March 24, 2002). "Bush-Rice 2004? The rise and rise of Condi", The Sunday Times of London
does not assert this. I had originally removed a dead link and added a [citation needed] tag. You assured me that this was not proper Wiki policy, and rather the correct thing to do was add a new, working link. While I do not doubt this (and it seems to make sense to me), I am just wondering why this particular link was chosen if it does not make the relevant claims. --MosheA (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
RFC/USER discussion concerning you (InaMaka)
Hello, InaMaka. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InaMaka, where you may want to participate. -- LotLE×talk 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Has been deleted. It was clearly an attempt to use the Wikipedia procedural system to win a debate over substance.--InaMaka (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hej van (Hi friend in Svenska), this is just a gentle reminder to watch some of your words on the Ward Churchill talk page. I can understand that sometimes things can get heated, but it's best to refrain from saying anything that can be construed as rude. If you're trying to persuade an audience (in this case, it's the community) that you're correct, the lowest form of persuasion is resorting to name calling (or anything, I repeat, anything, that can be construed as name calling). Just remember to keep it friendly and discussion will go a lot smoother :-) If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. ScarianCall me Pat! 19:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it, when you have the time, if you could acknowledge the above. :-) Thank-you. ScarianCall me Pat! 19:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Lara Logan gossip
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Lara Logan. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Please come to the talk page where I've initiated discussion. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Lara Logan. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Best to keep our discussions on the talk page instead of edit warring. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- You have been reverting my edits, therefore, if I am edit warring then you are the person with whom I am engaging in an edit war. I did not know that I was in an edit war until you left this post here. But if you state that you are participating in an edit war then I assume that you know what you are doing. In that light, I would ask you to stop engaging in an edit war. If you continue you will be blocked. I have stated several times that the New York Post is a reliable source and you are chosen to ignore that fact.--InaMaka (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This is your only warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Lara Logan, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please note that 3RR doesn't apply to reversal of BLP violations. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lara Logan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Please note that, if when you are unblocked you again add the contentious and defamatory material that you have been edit-warring to include at Lara Logan, without providing a more reliable source than so far cited, you will be blocked from editing again. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
You made a lot of assumptions about the use of the word "harrasement" in the paragraph... I put it in quotes because it was indeed from the "Chambliss in sugar furor" article (and not based on the word Scrutiny as you claimed). The link went to the wrong place but you made no attempt to find the real article... which was cited correctly. The link is fixed now but technically, you should've attempted to find the article on line or in the library. I am not the type of wikipedian to put an uncited claim of harrasement in an article. In the future... please make more of an effort when verifying things.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I did not make any assumptions. You don't know what I was thinking or not thinking. That comment is just silly. Look: The paragraph was badly written and you part of the reason. I fixed it and you have gotten your nose bent out of shape over it so you come by a couple of days later and write some obnoxious comments on my talk page. Even when it became clear that the word "harrasement" was used by a reporter it became clear that the alledged "harrasement" was NOT of the victim families but of a former employee of Imperial that clear has an axe to grind. That wording was simply wrong and I had to fix that mistake on your part. Really, please make more of an effort to get the facts straight when you edit or don't edit at all. Oh, by the way, my comment is in the exact same vein as your comment above. So don't cry about it.--InaMaka (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I made a few mistakes too (they were unintentional). Glad to see you checked the article.--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Joseph Cao photo
You recently uploaded a photo of congressman-elect Joseph Cao which you said was released for free use by the Cao campaign. Could you provide verification where they released this photo for free use? Thanks. DHN (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Did the campaign specifically mention that they released it for free use? If so, which license did the release it under? DHN (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't even see your comments before I removed that section. I don't know for sure if they were true or not, I suspect not. But the way it was written was pretty obvious POV. I personally believe that it is not necessary to notify before removing such obvious POV, I just go and remove such garbage. If it pisses someone off, they probably wouldn't like it any better if I told them in advance, it would just end up being a big pissing contest in the Discussion section. I think the whole article still suffers from a lack of proper sourcing / references, but I don't know the name of that template, otherwise I would add it. template at the top would be much easier than placing [citation needed] everywhere... Proxy User (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Spring, Texas
Hello, Inamaka. How does this [1] violate BLP and RS? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- The manner in which the information is presented clearly violates BLP because there is only ONE citation and it does not support the allegations listed. However, after reviewing the other article is becomes clear that there are other articles out there to support the allegations. However, just because the allegations can be supported does NOT mean that the information is relevant or needed in an article about Spring, Texas. The information is NOT relevant or needed and as such it should remain out of the article. There is NO precedent to list, in great detail, all of the horrendous crimes committed over the many, many years of the existence of New York City in the article about New York City and there is NO reason to outline a series of crimes in Spring, Texas. The topic MIGHT appropriate for its own article (which apparently exists already) but it is NOT appropriate for the Spring, Texas article. It is not encyclopedic.--InaMaka (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you are saying. Not all of the points were supported by that one cite. But there is a main article, 2006 Harris County, Texas hate crime assault, which has a lot of citations that could be used.
- The only reason why BLP applies is because of Tuck and Turner. Those details are verifiable, so I am adding a cites. Ritcheson is dead, so BLP doesn't apply to him.
- You said: "There is NO precedent to list, in great detail, all of the horrendous crimes committed over the many, many years of the existence of New York City in the article about New York City and there is NO reason to outline a series of crimes in Spring, Texas." - Actually, Ritcheson testified in front of Congress regarding hate crimes. So, yeah, it's notable. Also remember that smaller communities have things of relative importance. A single crime may not be listed in New York City, but a crime that notably affected a town of 3,000 would make it there (provided there are references to prove the effect and/or significance)
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please refer to [2]-Showwould40q for more information.(talk) 18:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have posted the results of Showwould40q's BS accusation below:
InaMaka reported by User:Showwould40q (Result: no vio)
- Page: Joseph Cao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: InaMaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [3]
- 1st revert: [4]
- 2nd revert: [link]
- 3rd revert: [link]
- 4th revert: [link]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [5]
Please follow this link [6] for more information.
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:CongressmanCaoPic.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=17873989){kind=link}
Please provide third party mediation. Thanks. -Showwould40q (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- No vio, obviously. S's edit history is suspiciously short, presumably someone's sock. Take it to WP:DR or more plausibly an image copyright page. IM could be a bit more civil William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
RE: Stanford
If he has been charged by a law enforcement agency, he has to have been arrested. I can change it to charge to fit the sources exactly. SGGH ping! 21:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Big 12 basketball
Based on your heavy editorial involvement in Sherron Collins, I thought you might be interested in creating a 2008–09 Big 12 Conference men's basketball season article. I have created a 2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season and there is a 2008–09 Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball season both of which may serve as guides. I have recently convinced the Big East to begin 2008–09 Big East Conference men's basketball season. If you are interested and have any questions, drop me a note.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
If a section gives undue weight to a particular topic, it is clearly appropriate to remove the section. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- If a section gives undue weight to a particular topic, it is clearly appropriate to remove the section. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are the one who is wholesale reverting. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- No. That comment is flat out wrong. I placed the reliably sourced, notable information in the article in the first place. You are the one deleting it. I am adding and you are eliminating and now you claim that I am deleting your work? That is backward and wrong. You have not placed any information in the article. You just eliminating it.--InaMaka (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are the one who is wholesale reverting. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Conversation now continuing at Talk:Kathleen Sebelius. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Roesgen - Coverage vs Controvery
I respectfully disagree with you but as long as that section stays in (it was removed in its entirety a number of edits ago and I replaced it) I'll accede to your way of looking at it. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
April 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Janeane Garofalo. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Loonymonkey (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
May 2009
Hi, I'm asking you to discuss any proposed changes you would like to make to the Miss USA 2009 controversy section of the Carrie Prejean article on that article's talk page. There is a discussion already going on there that you should join. Please do not make wholesale reversions or reinsert questionable information without discussing first. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Would you please tone down your edit summaries? Please review WP:CIVIL, our guideline on civility, which applies also to edit summaries. I suggest you also review WP:BLP, which explains our guidelines about information on living persons. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is my final request to you stop being incivil and to engage in discussion. Your recent edit to Alan Duncan [7] violates a clear guideline on blockquotes in WP:MOS. What is it you have against blockquotes anyway? Please stop reverting and undoing without discussion. This behaviour is extremely disruptive. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately you're not stating your opinion, since you largely refuse to engage in talk page discussion (except for ranting on the Miss USA talk page in a section that is only about where to put the information). Including Hilton's specific remarks is not a violation of BLP. If you believe it is, then please indicate where in the policy the relevant information can be found: that would be helpful. I'm not sure why you're so concerned about that, incidentally, since his remarks haven't been the subject of any recent edits to any of those articles anyway.
Also, it's not necessary to C&P what I write on your talk page onto mine: I'm quite capable of remembering it. But speaking of being incivil, inserting subheadings like "More hooey that belongs on Exploding Boy's page" certainly fits the bill. Please stop it. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, I want you to engage in civil, productive discussion on talk pages regarding the Miss USA issue in order to build consensus about how the information should be written and what should be included. I don't really care what your personal opinion on the matter is, as long as we end up with neutral, encyclopedic coverage. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
We're not getting anywhere here. I strongly suggest you review WP:CIVIL. Meanwhile, I have nothing further to say to you, but I'm repeating my request for you to engage in discussion on talk pages regarding the Miss USA issue in order to build consensus about how the information should be written and what should be included. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please stop it. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Why are you engaging in this behaviour? You are being incivil in both your edit summaries and your posts to my talk page. I have asked you repeatedly to stop it; you have not. I have asked you not to C&P all my comments from here to my talk page; you have continued to do so. I have asked you to engage in civil discussion of article content on the relevant pages; so far, I see no evidence on your part of any effort to do so. Instead you repeatedly state your intention to remove content you don't personally like on sight.
This does not need to be this difficult, InaMaka. I'm happy to discuss article content with you--that's what I've been trying to do all along--but please stop posting to my talk page unless you have something to say about an article. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- As I pointed out over on your talk page. Stop talking to me. I'm not interested in listening to you. I don't have time to discuss why Hilton's fascist comments should not be repeated in Wikipedia.--InaMaka (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect Comments of TharsHammar on My Talk Page
Please do not delete others talk page comments unnecessarily, as they were bringing up a point that could improve the article. Have a look over [8], try discussing it with the editor in question first. Also please do not leave abusive edit summaries characterizing their comments as "facist." Thanks. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, now that you have given me orders, orders that I will not follow mind you because you are not showing good faith and you not being a good Wikipedian. Let me give you a few orders. Do not re-inserted religiously bigoted anon comments from sockpuppets that attack whole religions as you have here:
- (1) Example #1 of TharsHammar re-inserting religiously bigoted comments of an anon sockpuppet
- (2) Example #2 of TharsHammar re-inserting religiously bigoted comments of an anon sockpuppet
- (3) Example #3 of TharsHammar re-inserting religiously bigoted comments of an anon sockpuppet. I can tell from your talk page that you have not been around very long and it is clear that do NOT know the Wikipedia rules yet. You should learn them before you start lecturing other editors on them. You do not do yourself a service by lecturing when you are defending a sockpuppet. It makes one wonder if you are a sockpuppet yourself. Are you?--InaMaka (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Learn the difference between a request and an order, it will do you good in life. To the point of this issue, the original IP comment was on topic asking if the article should be listed as a current event. The IP tossed in a useless comment at the end, which could have been dealt with separately from the other issue of current events. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Incivility on talk pages and in edit summaries
I can tell that you're heavily emotionally invested in the articles you've edited here, and that means you need to step back for a bit and reread WP:CIVIL. Calling anyone a fascist, whether Perez Hilton (offensive and bigoted, maybe, but far from fascist) or an anonymous commenter making an off-the-cuff religiously bigoted remark, is far outside the bounds of civility. You're getting really close to violating WP:NPA, and doing so is likely to get you blocked. You've also violated WP:3RR in your talk page exchange, whether you thought you were justified or not. Calling people names, edit warring, and telling people their responses to you are irrelevant, are not ways to get people to see you as a reasonable contributor, let alone to bring them to agree with you on an issue.
You also need to realize that not every anonymous editor is a sockpuppet, nor does the length of time an editor's been here necessarily indicate how familiar that editor may be with policy, or whether they are following it correctly. John Darrow (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- First, please do not copy another user's comments, or especially entire conversations, wholesale around between different talk pages. This violates the WP:GFDL, the license under which the information is submitted to Wikipedia, as it does not properly preserve the history of the comments. If you wish for all of the conversation to take place in one location, please reply wherever the initial conversation took place, and use the relevant templates such as {{talkback}} to inform those you are replying to that the comment is there.
- Second, as for "editing this thing longer", I see from our contribution histories that I have in fact been making WP edits for about a year longer than you. But, as I said above, length of time on WP is not a true indicator of one's familiarity with policy; only the content of one's edits can show that. Nor is specific time on Prejean's article a good indicator; I took the time to go through a large portion of the article and talk page histories, seeing what changes had been made and their accompanying reasons, before finding reason to make any changes there myself.
- Third, your last response makes it clear that you have no intention of assuming good faith. You have accused other editors of being out to ruin Carrie Prejean's career. There is no evidence of that. They may, in fact, believe that by actually quoting Hilton, it shows all the more clearly how offensive and bigoted his comments were, and makes _him_ less credible, while showing the world how brave Prejean is to speak out in spite of the attacks on her.
- Listen, you want to defend Carrie. Fine. I also don't personally believe that it's necessary to fully quote Hilton's offensive comments in Prejean's article, when simply stating that they were offensive would be sufficient. But to do that you need to work with other editors, discussing (on the talk page) what in fact is the best way for the Prejean article (among others) to mention the controversy (as it was notable) without it overwhelming the rest of the information there. It's not something you can do unilaterally. Continuing on the path you're currently on is more likely to get you blocked, and possibly even topic banned. This is not intented to be a threat - I'm not an admin, and wouldn't have the ability to do such a thing myself; nor do I believe you deserve such restrictions yet. I'm just letting you know that the WP community does not take kindly to the uncooperative attitude you've been showing. John Darrow (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I award you the Biographies of Living Persons barnstar
|
The BLP Barnstar | |
| Defender of the wiki -- in the face of the mobocracy dynamic going on at the Carrie Prejean biography article, and multiple civil POV pushers that have tried to harass or intimidate you and game the system -- you have worked very hard to move the article towards neutrality and try to limit noncompliance of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. For this, I award you this well-earned barnstar! Rico 15:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC) |
3RR
I have filed a 3RR report on you. You can reply here if you so choose. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 14:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I went and made a comment at the noticeboard. I ask that you don't canvass though, though since I was uninvolved no harm done. Wizardman 17:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense
There is sometimes a bit of the surreal on WP, no? Collect (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Talk
Please email me. Thank you. -- Rico 19:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am not edit-warring -- one revert is not an edit-war, I stick to 1RR per geologic era except in the case of vandalism, which your edit is not, and I won't be reverting it again. I would appreciate an apology. However, you're pushing close to the 3RR line yourself, and you may want to slow down before somebody else reports you.
- I would suggest to you and TharsHammer (and other parties on the talk page) that none of us touch that section of the article, except for vandalism reversion, until the RFC runs its course. A wider consensus is needed. Thank you. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Editors are allowed to reformat talk pages. The Squick's edits did not change anything in one of your posts. Seriously, take it down a few notches. You'll find it much easier to work with other editors if you don't take such a strident approach. Also, I suggest you add a new section discussing your decision to add a bunch of stuff about Fox & Friends without comment. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikiquette request
Hi InaMaka. Please see the Wikiquette discussion here. Thanks, Exploding Boy (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: I have three questions
You can see my talk page at User_talk:Ivan_Akira#I_have_three_questions for answer. I'm really sorry for delay in answering your query. Ivan Akira (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
June 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Letterman. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ckatzchatspy 21:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- No. Let me help you out. I am NOT engaged in an edit war. There are parties that ARE engaged in an edit war, but I am NOT one of them. You need to warn the editors that ARE engaged in an edit war. I will check and see if you have warned the actual editors that are removing reliably source, notable, relevant information from the David Letterman article.--InaMaka (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Three reverts to restore disputed material despite an ongoing discussion regarding that material equals edit warring. Please do not persist in this, or else you will in all likelihood end up blocked. --Ckatzchatspy 21:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with our three revert rule, as you've made 3 mass reverts within less than 24 hours at David Letterman: one, two, three. I strongly urge you to engage in discussion on the relevant talk page. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have engaged in the discussion. I have already engaged in the discussion here:[9] and here:[10]. It is false comments like this one that makes working on Wikipedia a bitter experience for many editors. Look we all know that you are an admin. We also know that you do not agree with my edit. We also know that you do not have a good reason to bury this important piece of information about Letterman's career in this the Late Show article. We also know that the statement that there are not criticism section in BLP article is not true. (See Condi Rice or good lord, Mel Gibson). We also know that a valid BLP argument is not present here. We also know that based upon your comments on my talk page that you are looking for reasons to have me blocked and ultimately banned from the Letterman article simply because you do not agree with my point of view. This is clear very early on. You are making the false claim that I am not engaged in the discussion. You are also editing the article and you are making false claims against someone who does not agree with your edits--specifically your edit to remove one of the most public fights Letterman has had with another person to a footnote in another article where it will be buried. Look, if you are going to ban me and block me why don't you just do it now and get it over with? You are obviously not a neutral, disinterested admin here. You have a desire to see your edit, that removed reliably sourced, notable, relevant information removed from the article stand. You are not interested in concensus--just getting your version of the article moved forward. There is no attempt on your part to discuss. So just block me now and let's get it over with. You are looking for reasons already. Also, you have another admin assisting you. So one of you IS going to block me for my point of view so that the article conforms to the version that two Letterman friendly admins want. Let just get it over with. I have been editing Wikipedia long enough to see where this is heading early on. There is no real discussion with you. Just threats of blocks and bans early on. No real discussion about the importance of the incident in Letterman's career--just right to the bully tactics of admins that have an axe to grind. No discussion about about how many times Letterman has had to made PUBLIC apologizes before in his career and no discussion about number of times that Letterman has had to apologize TWICE in the same incident. You and the admin don't really care for that discussion. You are only interested in burying the facts of the situation in the child article and keeping me, and other editors that disagree, quiet. AND then you call that CONCENSUS!!!! Freaking amazing.--InaMaka (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest you re-read our policies regarding assuming good faith and civility. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have engaged in the discussion. I have already engaged in the discussion here:[9] and here:[10]. It is false comments like this one that makes working on Wikipedia a bitter experience for many editors. Look we all know that you are an admin. We also know that you do not agree with my edit. We also know that you do not have a good reason to bury this important piece of information about Letterman's career in this the Late Show article. We also know that the statement that there are not criticism section in BLP article is not true. (See Condi Rice or good lord, Mel Gibson). We also know that a valid BLP argument is not present here. We also know that based upon your comments on my talk page that you are looking for reasons to have me blocked and ultimately banned from the Letterman article simply because you do not agree with my point of view. This is clear very early on. You are making the false claim that I am not engaged in the discussion. You are also editing the article and you are making false claims against someone who does not agree with your edits--specifically your edit to remove one of the most public fights Letterman has had with another person to a footnote in another article where it will be buried. Look, if you are going to ban me and block me why don't you just do it now and get it over with? You are obviously not a neutral, disinterested admin here. You have a desire to see your edit, that removed reliably sourced, notable, relevant information removed from the article stand. You are not interested in concensus--just getting your version of the article moved forward. There is no attempt on your part to discuss. So just block me now and let's get it over with. You are looking for reasons already. Also, you have another admin assisting you. So one of you IS going to block me for my point of view so that the article conforms to the version that two Letterman friendly admins want. Let just get it over with. I have been editing Wikipedia long enough to see where this is heading early on. There is no real discussion with you. Just threats of blocks and bans early on. No real discussion about the importance of the incident in Letterman's career--just right to the bully tactics of admins that have an axe to grind. No discussion about about how many times Letterman has had to made PUBLIC apologizes before in his career and no discussion about number of times that Letterman has had to apologize TWICE in the same incident. You and the admin don't really care for that discussion. You are only interested in burying the facts of the situation in the child article and keeping me, and other editors that disagree, quiet. AND then you call that CONCENSUS!!!! Freaking amazing.--InaMaka (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with our three revert rule, as you've made 3 mass reverts within less than 24 hours at David Letterman: one, two, three. I strongly urge you to engage in discussion on the relevant talk page. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Three reverts to restore disputed material despite an ongoing discussion regarding that material equals edit warring. Please do not persist in this, or else you will in all likelihood end up blocked. --Ckatzchatspy 21:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you wish to bring up "false claims", then by all means let's do so. For one, I've no stake in the edit, nor am I "assisting" anyone with a particular POV, so that claim of yours is invalid. Your multiple reverts were clearly a problem, and I responded in accordance with standard practice. Attempting to distract focus from your actions with spurious claims of collusion will simply not fly. Sort out the problem on the talk page, and stop the reverts. It is that simple. --Ckatzchatspy 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you Ckatz for proving my point so easily. You make a false claim in the comment above. My comments on this talk page are NOT an attempt to distract from my actions. They are straight on point refutation of the actions of you and another admin that have been editing an article (David Letterman) that you both have a stake in because you both have been editing. Now, you don't like what I stated so you are falsely claiming that I am attempting to distract--simply not true. I have been engaging in the discussion and I saw a CLEAR attempt to bury one of the most significant stories of David Letterman's career to a child article about the show--instead of being placed in the article about him. I stopped the attempted removal and the attempt to cover up this incident in Letterman's career and the attempt to have it buried. I was right and you don't like that. I did not violate 3RR so your comments are bogus. It comes down to that are an admin and you have a different opinion that me about whether the Letterman/Palin fight should be in his main article, which of course it should be, or whether it should be deeply buried as one line in a child article, which of course borders, or might just be, censorship. And remember Wikipedia is not censored. That is a Wikipedia policy.--InaMaka (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- 3RR and edit warring reflect actions, not absolutes. Your actions were disrupting the article, and your concerns could have been addressed in a less disruptive manner. As for your erroneous claims above, where are my supposed edits of this article? Of the last 2000 edits to David Letterman, only one of them has been from me - and that was to remove an external link. --Ckatzchatspy 21:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- No. You are wrong. You are convinced of your bullying admin tactics and that is fine. My edits were not disruptive. That is just a blanket claim that bullying admins, such as you, throw out there when you can't come up with anything else. The bottomline is that the editor that attempted to remove the Palin information from the Letterman article was flat out wrong and I called him/her out on it. I then was pursued by you and another admin for petty false claims of 3RR and now "disruptive editing". You need to learn how to be more judicious in your use of your admin powers.--InaMaka (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- You need to be civil and assume good faith. There was nothing "petty" or "false" regarding the 3RR warning; it was quite in order. And if you are going to criticize people for making "blanket statements", I suggest you reconsider your own claim that "My edits were not disruptive". Glass houses, and all.... --ZimZalaBim talk 02:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Look at your comments. You talk to me as if I am a child. You are merely an admin in a volunteer project, but it gives you a sense of superiority that is truly not called for. You talk with arrogance and superiority and you make scorn people about being civility and good faith when I am pointing out that both you and the othe admin are the epitome of editors that completely ignore civility and good faith. You engage in bullying tactics when it fits into your view of the way an article should be edited and then you project your actions and thoughts onto the editors that disagree with you. The thing is that I'm NOT cowed by your bullying tactics and you are not quite sure what to do about my lack of concern other than the old tried and true tactic of threatening a block on me and then following through with it if I do not kow tow to your grand Wikipedian admin powers. Give me a break. This discussion with you and with the other admin is NOT about making Wikipedia a better place (if it was then we would have had a long discussion about how to make the David Letterman article better but we aren't you and the other admin are attempting to make me quake and shake to your one little power that you have, the ability to block volunteer Wikipedians. Man, if that is all you have in life then I would hope that things get better. Block me. It will make you feel better. But keep in mind when you do it, it will NOT be about making Wikipedia better, but about either you or the other admin keeping up appearances that you still block other Wikipedians and make then quake and shake in your presence. I will get up in the morning and I will have a real job and real wife and a real family to keep me busy. Good evening.--InaMaka (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Goodbye, best of luck on the project. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Look at your comments. You talk to me as if I am a child. You are merely an admin in a volunteer project, but it gives you a sense of superiority that is truly not called for. You talk with arrogance and superiority and you make scorn people about being civility and good faith when I am pointing out that both you and the othe admin are the epitome of editors that completely ignore civility and good faith. You engage in bullying tactics when it fits into your view of the way an article should be edited and then you project your actions and thoughts onto the editors that disagree with you. The thing is that I'm NOT cowed by your bullying tactics and you are not quite sure what to do about my lack of concern other than the old tried and true tactic of threatening a block on me and then following through with it if I do not kow tow to your grand Wikipedian admin powers. Give me a break. This discussion with you and with the other admin is NOT about making Wikipedia a better place (if it was then we would have had a long discussion about how to make the David Letterman article better but we aren't you and the other admin are attempting to make me quake and shake to your one little power that you have, the ability to block volunteer Wikipedians. Man, if that is all you have in life then I would hope that things get better. Block me. It will make you feel better. But keep in mind when you do it, it will NOT be about making Wikipedia better, but about either you or the other admin keeping up appearances that you still block other Wikipedians and make then quake and shake in your presence. I will get up in the morning and I will have a real job and real wife and a real family to keep me busy. Good evening.--InaMaka (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- You need to be civil and assume good faith. There was nothing "petty" or "false" regarding the 3RR warning; it was quite in order. And if you are going to criticize people for making "blanket statements", I suggest you reconsider your own claim that "My edits were not disruptive". Glass houses, and all.... --ZimZalaBim talk 02:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- No. You are wrong. You are convinced of your bullying admin tactics and that is fine. My edits were not disruptive. That is just a blanket claim that bullying admins, such as you, throw out there when you can't come up with anything else. The bottomline is that the editor that attempted to remove the Palin information from the Letterman article was flat out wrong and I called him/her out on it. I then was pursued by you and another admin for petty false claims of 3RR and now "disruptive editing". You need to learn how to be more judicious in your use of your admin powers.--InaMaka (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- 3RR and edit warring reflect actions, not absolutes. Your actions were disrupting the article, and your concerns could have been addressed in a less disruptive manner. As for your erroneous claims above, where are my supposed edits of this article? Of the last 2000 edits to David Letterman, only one of them has been from me - and that was to remove an external link. --Ckatzchatspy 21:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you Ckatz for proving my point so easily. You make a false claim in the comment above. My comments on this talk page are NOT an attempt to distract from my actions. They are straight on point refutation of the actions of you and another admin that have been editing an article (David Letterman) that you both have a stake in because you both have been editing. Now, you don't like what I stated so you are falsely claiming that I am attempting to distract--simply not true. I have been engaging in the discussion and I saw a CLEAR attempt to bury one of the most significant stories of David Letterman's career to a child article about the show--instead of being placed in the article about him. I stopped the attempted removal and the attempt to cover up this incident in Letterman's career and the attempt to have it buried. I was right and you don't like that. I did not violate 3RR so your comments are bogus. It comes down to that are an admin and you have a different opinion that me about whether the Letterman/Palin fight should be in his main article, which of course it should be, or whether it should be deeply buried as one line in a child article, which of course borders, or might just be, censorship. And remember Wikipedia is not censored. That is a Wikipedia policy.--InaMaka (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you wish to bring up "false claims", then by all means let's do so. For one, I've no stake in the edit, nor am I "assisting" anyone with a particular POV, so that claim of yours is invalid. Your multiple reverts were clearly a problem, and I responded in accordance with standard practice. Attempting to distract focus from your actions with spurious claims of collusion will simply not fly. Sort out the problem on the talk page, and stop the reverts. It is that simple. --Ckatzchatspy 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Worst Miss USA answers in history
Miss South Carolina USA train wreck. What moment would Miss USA relive? -- Rico 23:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Carrie Prejean
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Carrie Prejean. Thank you. Rico 02:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})
AfD nomination of Jessica Sierra
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jessica Sierra. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Sierra. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Fundraising for Wilson article
While I'd agree that actblue is certainly a partisan source, I'm not sure that it's inaccurate when reporting fundraising numbers. I'd also disagree with your assessment that The Nation is not a reliable source for the same thing. (And having one's actions lead to an opponent doubling or tripling his contributions is probably signifigant). If the numbers show up in a clearly indisputable source (NYTimes, CNN, etc), I think it would be worth re-adding them. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is NO credible evidence, at this time, that the Democratic candidate received any more money last night than Wilson did. I have seen website after website arguing that even if you don't live in SC then you should give $$$ to Wilson for calling Obama a liar--which is the exact opposite of what the Nation and actblue or claiming. Also, Wikipedia has a very, very, very clear rule that partisan websites are NOT the correct source to support facts. And finally, when it comes to Congressional funding-raising what one politician raised in one night based upon the one speech or debate is a silly barometer of the race. The the only credible discussion on a supposedly encyclopedic website should be the quarterly or yearly numbers released by the Federal Election Commission. That's what the pros, Cook, Rasmussen, etc., look at and that is the standard that Wikipedia should follow, not the next day opinion of a partisan hack source such as the Nation or actblue.--InaMaka (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to disagree that ActBlue is partisan, although I'd have some issues with labeling the Nation as a hack journal (although clearly FEC numbers are more reliable). However than debate that (since the Nation is no more neutral than AEI or others), I'd posit that if a major news outlet (NYTimes, Fox, AP) reports it, it's fine for us to use that. While we should always include the best references, the face that we won't have FEC numbers for a quarter or so doesn't mean we shouldn't include any coverage at all. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should move this discussion to the article talk, since the main question seems to be whether the funding is notable. I think it is (based on the doubling of his contributions), but since for me to say that would be a SYNTH, I can't make a stronger argument than $100,000 is a decent chunk of change. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
AGF Warning
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Joe Wilson (U.S. politician). Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Please tone down the level of antagonism. It's fine to disagree with other editors, but your statements on "Slimy Dems" and "Rhambo BS" don't exactly build an encyclopedic tone.Djma12 (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, this is a warning to you. If someone is going to attempt to quote actblue and quote the DNC then they have given up there right to assumption of good faith. I complete ignore your warning. I assumed good faith and then he quoted the DNC!!! Assumption gone for good. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please note that the DNC is a reliable source for the DNC's position on any matter; as the RNC is for their views, etc. While it is recognized that they are biased, and have an agenda, they are most emphatically a reliable source for their positions. Citing them is not only acceptable, in some instances it is practically mandatory. Your charge that quoting them somehow negates the need for you to AGF and be civil is specious at best. Please take the time to evaluate and reconsider your position. You are very close to a block for disruption. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 11:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also as a side note: it is "their" not "there", (their right...) as "there" is an indication of place, not a possessive. I mention this only because we are all editors here, and you should be mindful of correct word usage. You will find some people here are very critical of those whose posts display potential indicators of basic ignorance, and this may negatively affect their opinion of your ability to edit productively. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 11:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- You are right, of course. But you need to be aware that if certain editors were to read your comments above they would be appalled by your pompous tone. Now, of course, I'm ok with it because frankly your opinion is irrelevant to me. However, you also need to be mindful that since you are an administrator there are many editors, not myself of course, would believe that possibly spend way much time on a project that does pay you one red cent and there are those who would question your priorities in life, not me of course. Have a good day!!--InaMaka (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Check this out
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:BLPN#Carrie_Prejean. Rico 00:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}}) -- Rico 00:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Charlie Sheen and TMZ.com
Please see the discussion at Reliable Sources archive #34. Cheers!--averagejoe (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
In fact, I did look at what you said in the edit summary, and based on the WP:RS/N links provided to you two days ago, I reverted based on your personal opinion regarding TMZ. The WP:RS/N thread above disagrees with your assessment regarding this source and your edits were done based on it not being a reliable source. Please exercise http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InaMaka&action=edit§ion=4discretion in the future when you attack other editors' reverts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Let me explain something to you. Questions have been raised about using TMZ at the reliable sources noticeboard on more than one occasion and the overriding opinion is that it is mostly considered a reliable source, no more unreliable than other sources that make occasional errors and retract them. This is beyond that one report. You do not come to my talk page and publically announce that you intend to edit war over something that is based on your personal opinion. I did not say I was going to return that particular item, but in the future, if you revert me based on your personal opinion of a source, we will be going directly to WP:AN/I. Do not announce your intention to revert prior to the fact. Wikipedia takes a dim view on announcements such as that. And for the record, Laura Kelly does meet notability requirements as outlined on WP:POLITICIAN. Please familiarize yourself with such requirements before making public announcements regarding your interpretation of notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
GA reassessment of Condoleezza Rice
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Condoleezza Rice/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
"The article in its current state is awful. WP:COATRACK is precisely the right phrase to use, ... The sad thing, to me, is that there appears to be a general understanding that the bit about her plastic surgery is not important, and yet it has been kept in the article in a way designed, as far as I can tell, to attempt to cast a negative light on her." -- User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_55#Nice_attack_coatrack -- Rico 04:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Did you click on the link? It might help if Jimbo heard from more than one editor. -- Rico 22:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Check this out
You are invited to join the discussion at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Attack_coatrack_we_discussed. -- Rico 18:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})
Carrie
- Hey, InaMaka, I made a proposal about the lead on the talk page I'd like your opinion on. Cheers --Milowent (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Your repeated claim
Before you continue repeating the falsehood that I've not said why I think the quote should be included, you should review my postings on Talk:Carrie Prejean of 14:33, 17 March 2010; 18:43, 17 March 2010; and 21:01, 17 March 2010. You may not agree with the reasons, but it is clearly false that I have not given them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nat Gertler, the only response you have ever given to InaMaka was a pathetic one where you claimed something along the lines that since Hilton called her a "DUMB BITCH" and a "CUNT", and since it could be reliably sourced, therefore Wikipedia HAD to include it. You have failed to provide a valid reason to include such hate speech and BLP violations to the Miss Carrie Prejean article. Furthermore, both your wikilawyering and your bully like tactics are getting under my skin. Stop it already. Caden cool 21:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Really? Where did I say that? Oh, right, I didn't... --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah you said it alright. Deny it all you want because you're not fooling a single person. By the way, did I ever tell you that you're by far one of the best POV pushers ever seen on wiki? You deserve a barn star just for that alone. Actually, you deserve a few others as well, like a barn star for gaming the system? Yes, that sounds just about right :) Caden cool 21:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Really? Where did I say that? Oh, right, I didn't... --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Would you be willing to let someone from the mediation cabal come in and help settle the multiple disputes we're dealing with on Carrie Prejean? AniMate 20:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Jimbo editing and discussing Carrie Prejean
Jimbo is editing the Carrie Prejean article and discussing her on that article's talk page. -- Rico 23:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity
|
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
| The way you have handled yourself during debates and editing of the Carrie Prejean attack coatrack of a living person has shown me that you are a person of integrity and honor -- a real stand-up person -- that believes in doing what's right. I've felt this way for a long time, and nothing you have done or written has shaken my belief. -- Rico 01:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC) |
Tim Scott
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Tim Scott a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Tassedethe (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Civility
Hi InaMaka. I see that the discussion became a little heated over at Sodapaps' talk page. When you called Sodapaps a "nubie" that was a violation of our policy against making personal attacks on other editors. Also, your comment that she is a liar broke our rules on editing and discussing in a constructive and civil manner. These policies, also known as WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, are important core policies in the Wikipedia community. I understand that you suspect this user of being a sockpuppet, but I'd like to encourage you to resolve disputes without resorting to name calling. Thanks, Gobonobo T C 14:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Let me help you out. When someone states something that is untrue about a living person it is a lie. Now, that lie violates BLP and several other Wikipedia rules. I explained to Sodapaps in various ways that his on-going edits to the article that defames a living person must be stopped. Now, you come along and berate me for making sure that a new editor stops violating BLP. I reviewed your contributions and it is clear that you have NOT attempted to stop the new editor from engaging in his personal attacks on a living person's article. It is clear that you have decided to take sides and you are NOT helping the situation, but only making it worse. You CLAIM to be a cooperative, but your actions belie your statements. If you really wanted to properly assist Wikipedia then you would work with me to get the new editor to stop engaging in personal attacks in the Kristi Noem article. But clearly that is not you aim. I have reviewed your comments and I reject them. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the help and explanation. I'm sorry if I was out of line, I truly did not intend to berate you. Have you tried taking the suspected sock over to WP:SPI yet? I'll take you up on your offer to work together and see what I can do to help out on the Kristi Noem article. You have a good day too! Cheers, Gobonobo T C 22:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- InaMaka, you do need to calm down... you're not helping your case with the repeated taunts to this guy, who is obviously trying to get you riled up. Instead, file an SPI request and present your evidence. As well, out of courtesy to your fellow editors, please refrain from copying other people's posts to different pages, as you did here. Please make sure that, in your desire to resolve this matter, you do not inadvertently contravene Wikipedia's standards for conduct. --Ckatzchatspy 09:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Hutchison
I already did take it to the talk page. -Rrius (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Am I to take it from the tone of your discussions above, your childish "you take it the talk page" (again, despite the fact that I already had), and your failure to answer that you have no interest in actually participating? -Rrius (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
June 2010
Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Kay Bailey Hutchison. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Rrius (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I did not attack another editor. I stated that you did not tell the truth. You lied about my point of view. When you lie about what I state then it is a lie. I don't know what else to call it. Please stop misrepresenting my point of view.--InaMaka (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes you did. Saying someone is lying is a personal attack, as is saying you can't trust anything further they need to say. This incident and the incidents above show that you need to actually read the policy instead of reflexively claiming everything you've done is reasonable. If my characterization of your view was not accurate, so be it, but it is wrong for you to lash out on the assumption that it is a lie. You need to assume good faith, both as a matter of policy and as a means of actually having a meaningful discussion. -Rrius (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- No. You did lie. You stated that I said and believed something that I didn't. I'm not going to apologize for calling a lie a lie. I do need to assume good faith, but when someone violates good faith, as you did when you put words in my mouth--which is a lie--then the assumption of good faith is ruined. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes you did. Saying someone is lying is a personal attack, as is saying you can't trust anything further they need to say. This incident and the incidents above show that you need to actually read the policy instead of reflexively claiming everything you've done is reasonable. If my characterization of your view was not accurate, so be it, but it is wrong for you to lash out on the assumption that it is a lie. You need to assume good faith, both as a matter of policy and as a means of actually having a meaningful discussion. -Rrius (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I did not attack another editor. I stated that you did not tell the truth. You lied about my point of view. When you lie about what I state then it is a lie. I don't know what else to call it. Please stop misrepresenting my point of view.--InaMaka (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Even though you may not care
First, I appreciate you finally allowing the farm subsidy issue to stand and i don't mind it's current form. Second, I am not a sockpuppet. Whether you choose to believe it or not this is my only Wikipedia identity. I'm glad to see some have called you on this. Anyway, have a nice day.Sodapaps (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong again, sock. No one has disputed that your edits look like the work of a sock. Have a good day, socky.--InaMaka (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I realize in this day and age little details may easily escape some folks. One of the great things about modern technology and the internet is anyone with a little know how can track IP addresses. So, here you go: 140.239.100.85 = Chapel Hill, 24.220.251.91 = watertown, 71.191.8.218 = Washington D.C., 76.66.126.77 = Ontario Canada, 64.179.158.185 = Rapid City. That last one is me, by the way. Now, unless I've been jet setting around the country with some elaborate plan to conceal my identity because for some reason I'm afraid of little InaMaka discovering who I am, then I guess I'm a sockpuppet. Realizing, of course, that you won't admit when you are wrong, I will simply sit here smiling, knowing how painful this must be for someone as self-righteous as yourself.Sodapaps (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, you really aren't as bright as I believed. By your attempts to continue to defend your sockpuppetry you dig a deeper hole for your lack of knowledge. There are hundreds of websites on the Internet where someone, such as yourself, that can go and mask your IP address with a proxy. Its done all the time, sock. You don't have anything on me. You know it and I know it. By the way, I'm not self-righteous, I'm just right and you are no match for my wits. Its as simple as that. You feel the need to accuse me of self-righteousness because I have proven you to be a new editor that did not understand the rules of Wikipedia and I proved without question that you were breaking them and I set you straight. You are just pathetically looking something, anything, to save face, but you can't. Deal with it. Man up.--InaMaka (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I realize in this day and age little details may easily escape some folks. One of the great things about modern technology and the internet is anyone with a little know how can track IP addresses. So, here you go: 140.239.100.85 = Chapel Hill, 24.220.251.91 = watertown, 71.191.8.218 = Washington D.C., 76.66.126.77 = Ontario Canada, 64.179.158.185 = Rapid City. That last one is me, by the way. Now, unless I've been jet setting around the country with some elaborate plan to conceal my identity because for some reason I'm afraid of little InaMaka discovering who I am, then I guess I'm a sockpuppet. Realizing, of course, that you won't admit when you are wrong, I will simply sit here smiling, knowing how painful this must be for someone as self-righteous as yourself.Sodapaps (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong again, sock. No one has disputed that your edits look like the work of a sock. Have a good day, socky.--InaMaka (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- LOL! I knew the first thing you would say was that I could be switching my IP. That's right nub, I'm switching my IP to confuse Wikipedia. Of course my favorite part is where you claim that I have a lack of knowledge about IP's, and then you claim later, "You know it and I know it." Wait, if I have a lack of knowledge about that, how do I know it? Not only are you self-righteous, but your comment that I am no match for your wits proves that you are also insecure and trite. That being said, thankfully you are right. I am no match for your wits as I would have to be incredibly dumb to achieve that. I was done with you awhile back, but man, you make this so much fun.Sodapaps (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just out of curiousity, if you're not swapping IPs, how did you change from Special:Contributions/64.179.158.185 (South Dakota) to Special:Contributions/67.54.133.37 (Minnesota) in a relatively short time? --Ckatzchatspy 21:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Sodapaps, you have given us all of the IP addresses that you have been editing under. Remember if I am trite, then why do you keep arguing with me? I guess you are as trite as I am. But I know why you keep arguing with me because you have been caught dead in your sockpuppet tracks. I wonder if someone should do a check and compare those IP addresses to previous known editors of the Noem article? Talk you later after your next witless response, Sock.--InaMaka (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- You realize of course that all those IP addresses I "gave" you can be found on Kristi Noem's discussion page. That's some wit you have got there. And to the dude above you, my guess is my IP address switched because I'm at a work retreat in the Black Hills and the only internet is through WildBlue satellite services out of Minnesota. You do know what work is, right? Wow. You wiki admins are geniuses. Talk to you later after your next witless response, douchepuppet.Sodapaps (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Sodapaps, you have given us all of the IP addresses that you have been editing under. Remember if I am trite, then why do you keep arguing with me? I guess you are as trite as I am. But I know why you keep arguing with me because you have been caught dead in your sockpuppet tracks. I wonder if someone should do a check and compare those IP addresses to previous known editors of the Noem article? Talk you later after your next witless response, Sock.--InaMaka (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just out of curiousity, if you're not swapping IPs, how did you change from Special:Contributions/64.179.158.185 (South Dakota) to Special:Contributions/67.54.133.37 (Minnesota) in a relatively short time? --Ckatzchatspy 21:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- LOL! I knew the first thing you would say was that I could be switching my IP. That's right nub, I'm switching my IP to confuse Wikipedia. Of course my favorite part is where you claim that I have a lack of knowledge about IP's, and then you claim later, "You know it and I know it." Wait, if I have a lack of knowledge about that, how do I know it? Not only are you self-righteous, but your comment that I am no match for your wits proves that you are also insecure and trite. That being said, thankfully you are right. I am no match for your wits as I would have to be incredibly dumb to achieve that. I was done with you awhile back, but man, you make this so much fun.Sodapaps (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikiquette alert
Hello, InaMaka. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Sodapaps (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Susan B. Anthony. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I detect a POV problem in your edits to the article: sentences like "Gordon and Sherr cannot claim without question that Anthony did not write it" are essentially POV, even if they are verified. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- How's that trolling working out for you Drmies?--InaMaka (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was going to leave you a "talkback" template for you here, but in light of the gratuitous and unjust comment above I am not sure if a decent discussion is up your alley. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- You don't know me or really anything about me. You have read a few comments on an anon Internet page. You don't know squat about me so don't flatter yourself into thinking you have the ability to comment on anyone personally.--InaMaka (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Pfff. I do know some squat about you: you are calling me a troll. That's violating good faith, it's silly, and it's not constructive. And contrary to your hasty statement, I actually have the ability to comment on lots of people. Look, I'm doing it again: you are not being helpful to the project. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- You don't know me or really anything about me. You have read a few comments on an anon Internet page. You don't know squat about me so don't flatter yourself into thinking you have the ability to comment on anyone personally.--InaMaka (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was going to leave you a "talkback" template for you here, but in light of the gratuitous and unjust comment above I am not sure if a decent discussion is up your alley. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- How's that trolling working out for you Drmies?--InaMaka (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring at Susan B. Anthony
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Susan B. Anthony. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- You are right. And you are the person with which I am edit warring. So I would suggest that you place this warning on your talk page also.--InaMaka (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- You have a message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:InaMaka reported by User:Binksternet (Result: protected). - 2/0 (cont.) 05:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Mike Pompeo
Please do not keep removing the sourced information about Pompeo's recent blog controversy. This controversy has gained national attention: [11], probably more so than any other news story involving Pompeo. It's certainly not undue weight, nor is it POV (as you claimed repeatedly) to simply mention that there has been a controversy. POV would be saying something like "Pompeo linked to a racist blog post; therefore he's a racist and so is anyone who votes for him". That's not what the paragraph in question said, it merely mentioned that there has been a national controversy about Pompeo's Twitter/Facebook posting. It would be irresponsible of us not to mention the controversy when, as I said, this controversy is the reason Pompeo has gotten national attention. I understand that you created Pompeo's article and so might feel "protective" of it, but you should also read WP: OWN; just because you created an article doesn't mean that you "own" it or have the right to decide what should and shouldn't go in it. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- This discussion belongs on the talk page of Pompeo, not here. It is inappropriate to place it here.--InaMaka (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Reported to AN3RR
Please see the relevant thread here: [12]. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Sockpuppetry case
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/InaMaka for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Please don't make edit summaries like this: [13]. I'm not a fan of Alveda King either, but comparing her to Fred Phelps is over the line. WP: BLP applies to edit summaries, too. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Alveda King
I noticed you made this edit in an attempt to warn an IP not to vandalize. While the edit the IP made was vandalism, it was not "racist hate speech" as you claimed; in fact, it had nothing to do with race at all. We do have a policy of not biting the newcomers. A simple level 1 uw-POV tag would have sufficed. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
BS placed here by myownworst
Since you are relatively new to Wikipedia, please use the discussion pages of articles before you edit them, especially major ones (i.e. Lisa Murkowski) Thanks.Myownworst (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- All I was simply saying is that when editing major articles you need to discuss the desired changes on the discussion page beforehand. There's no need to get so upset!Myownworst (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I am concerned, this debate is over. Please leave me alone.Myownworst (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Personal attacks by Arbor832466
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- This comment has been taken care of by placing a warning on Arbor832466's talk page to not engage in personal attacks. The warning template used is as follows:
- Editorial disagreements should not be called vandalism, and you should not call someone a vandal just because they make an edit you disagree with. If you do so, you may run afoul of the Wikipedia:no personal attacks policy; you'd be better off adhering to Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks instead!--InaMaka (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- This comment has been taken care of by placing a warning on Arbor832466's talk page to not engage in personal attacks. The warning template used is as follows:
Please stop. Some of your recent edits and edit summaries appear unconstructive and hostile, including [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Please assume good faith, focus comments on the articles, adhere to WP:Civility and refrain from speculating about other editors motivations. Additionally, please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Horse hockey placed on my talk page by Gobonobo
Inamaka, please do not remove well -referenced content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kristi Noem. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Gobonobo T C 18:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- The pervious comment was taken care of on Gobonobo's talk page. What follows is an exact copy of my response of the misuse of warning template's by Gobonobo:
- Let me help you out. I don't know what game you are playing with the Kristi Noem article, but it is simple matter of how to edit it. If the traffic violations are a valid topic for inclusion in the Noem article then the traffic violations of Noem's opponent's chief of staff ("COS") are ALSO valid for inclusion in the article. Now, if the traffic violations are not valid for inclusion then the traffic violations of the COS are not valid for inclusion. An admin removed the COS's DUI conviction for the Herseth Sandlin article because the admin argued that personal articles are NOT the place for every tit for tat of the campaign. Noem's traffic violations are only in the news because of the give and take of the campaign--just as the DUI of the COS. So applying the logic of the admin working the Herseth Sandlin article to the Noem article then traffic violations should not be included. Also, there are BLP issues involved. Do we want to put in Wikipedia the traffic violations of each and every person that has an article about them? No. Please review the BLP rules. There is also the issue of undue weight. Listing all of her violations one by one takes up a huge part of her bio. Now, you have been editing at Wikipedia for quite a long time now. I have butted heads with you in the past. You have given me the same inappropriate warning in the past. You do not discuss the issues you just revert and then put warning above on my talk page. From now on the burden in on you to DISCUSS. Just don't tell people to discuss. Start discussing. It is a delay tactic on your part. If this had been the first time that you gave me that warning then I understanding but we have had this exact same discussion. Also, I did discuss the changes on the edit summary. And you know this. I can tell by the way that edited my talk page. The original warning asks that comments be left in the edit summary--which I did--so you edited the warning to remove the part about discussing in the edit summary. Now, unless you provide good reasoning on why either ALL of the traffic violations (and that includes the violations of Noem and the COS) belong in the article about Noem then I am going to remove the references to the traffic violations because they violate BLP and undue weight. Now, in response to your warning, let this be fair warning to you that you need to start discussing issues before you blindly revert.--InaMaka (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- To be clear, I started a discussion about the traffic violations on Noem's talk page on August 30, attempting to address BLP concerns that you brought up in your edit summaries. There was no response and only after I posted to the talk page again and on your talk page did you engage in the discussion. Also, I took offense to you referring to my contributions as horse hockey. Would you be willing to retract that language? Gobonobo T C 22:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Let me help you out. I don't know what game you are playing with the Kristi Noem article, but it is simple matter of how to edit it. If the traffic violations are a valid topic for inclusion in the Noem article then the traffic violations of Noem's opponent's chief of staff ("COS") are ALSO valid for inclusion in the article. Now, if the traffic violations are not valid for inclusion then the traffic violations of the COS are not valid for inclusion. An admin removed the COS's DUI conviction for the Herseth Sandlin article because the admin argued that personal articles are NOT the place for every tit for tat of the campaign. Noem's traffic violations are only in the news because of the give and take of the campaign--just as the DUI of the COS. So applying the logic of the admin working the Herseth Sandlin article to the Noem article then traffic violations should not be included. Also, there are BLP issues involved. Do we want to put in Wikipedia the traffic violations of each and every person that has an article about them? No. Please review the BLP rules. There is also the issue of undue weight. Listing all of her violations one by one takes up a huge part of her bio. Now, you have been editing at Wikipedia for quite a long time now. I have butted heads with you in the past. You have given me the same inappropriate warning in the past. You do not discuss the issues you just revert and then put warning above on my talk page. From now on the burden in on you to DISCUSS. Just don't tell people to discuss. Start discussing. It is a delay tactic on your part. If this had been the first time that you gave me that warning then I understanding but we have had this exact same discussion. Also, I did discuss the changes on the edit summary. And you know this. I can tell by the way that edited my talk page. The original warning asks that comments be left in the edit summary--which I did--so you edited the warning to remove the part about discussing in the edit summary. Now, unless you provide good reasoning on why either ALL of the traffic violations (and that includes the violations of Noem and the COS) belong in the article about Noem then I am going to remove the references to the traffic violations because they violate BLP and undue weight. Now, in response to your warning, let this be fair warning to you that you need to start discussing issues before you blindly revert.--InaMaka (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Recent comments
Hey thanks for combing through my edits to look for something you could comment about on my talk page after your couldn't source your WMD edit. I responded on my talk page. The Duke edit was completely factually and a direct quote from the source. I put it back in the article. Thanks again. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Using Snopes as a reference
Generally, Snopes is generally considered a reliable source about urban myths. Please see the multiple discussions on the reliable source noticeboard about this. Ravensfire (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Joe Miller (politician)
I noticed that you deleted and said should be moved, but didn't move it. Do you know or have an affinity for Namiba? Please respond with rationale ASAP. You seem to be an obstructionist. {{Rosspz}}
- No, I do not. You are asking the question because you know that I know that you are probably a sockpuppet for User talk:75.73.209.32. Your editing pattern and your over-the-top comments are exactly the same in tone and tenor of 75.73.209.32. Please take this comment as warning about sockpuppetry. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, amigo. Not sure what you mean. Sometimes I log in and sometimes I'm too lazy to log in. I originated the article on Joe Miller. I'm Rosspz. And I'm 75.73.209.32 when I forget to log in and I'm 74.94.83.94 when I edit from work. You're just a little too clever by half. Sorry if you're offended, but the isssues are bigger than just you. Stop being punctilious and try to use Wiki so it's a respected source of information and not a power play sandbox for you. Right now, you're just a gnat of irritation and obstruction and not of any help to anyone. Start playing the game for the greater good and not just for you own self-importance. Deal with in, amigo, or find another hobby. Best wishes. {{Rosspz}} and 75.73.209.32 and 74.94.83.94.
- Oh, I get it. You are a smartass. That's ok. I've dealt with your type before. You are just one more blowhard trying to teach me a lesson. Let me help you out. That information that you are trying to POV warrior your way into the Joe Miller article aren't going to stay there. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Civility
Hi InaMaka. I wanted to tell you that I'm confident that any content dispute on Kristi Noem or other articles can be resolved. I will continue to discuss article-related issues on their respective talk pages and hope we can work towards a consensus.
As a separate matter, I've been frustrated with your communication with myself and other editors. Specifically, I've been dismayed at what I consider to be a pattern of incivility and hostility directed towards other editors in your edit summaries and talk page comments. Characterizing your fellow editors' posts as hogwash, horse hockey or BS is not constructive or respectful. Also of concern to me is the hostile reactions you have had to editors who have tried to bring their concerns to you. [20], [21] This, coupled with a refusal to acknowledge the validity of those concerns [22] does not foster a pleasant editing environment but rather one where meaningful and productive conversation is stifled. We both are active editors of politics-related articles, and I know that you make numerous positive contributions to Wikipedia. I would like to move past any civility issues and focus on content. Gobonobo T C 04:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would point out the same applies to you and you must blindly reverting my edits without discussion. You behavior is unacceptable. Please bring it in compliance with Wikipedia standards.--InaMaka (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I have nothing to apologize for or as you say "acknowledge." Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear that you're unwilling to acknowledge the concerns I bring up. I've posted an entry at Wikiquette alerts in the hopes of working towards a resolution. Gobonobo T C 02:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I have nothing to apologize for or as you say "acknowledge." Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
WQA
Please take note of WP:WQA#InaMaka. Looie496 (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Stephene Moore
Hey, I'm concerned about the edit summary [23] you placed on Stephene Moore. Can you maybe expand on it on Talk:Stephene Moore? Arbor832466 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- To me, it looks like a petty shot across the bow, to annoy any editors who were hoping Moore would win her political battle. I do not see any other reason for InaMaka to summarize a simple category addition in this way: "She's really not qualified to be a Congressman, but fortunately she will get soundly beaten in November." The edit summary just does not fit the edit itself. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I responded to both Arbor832466 and Binksternet comments on the talk page of Stephene Moore, where the conversation really should be. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- You addressed whether Stephene Moore is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, and I agree that Talk:Stephene Moore is the place to discuss that. I questioning the appropriateness of the edit summary in which you stated that it Moore was "not really qualified" for office and it would be "fortunate" if she were to be "soundly beaten." Arbor832466 (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Once again, if you want to talk please go to the appropriate place. Stephene Moore does not qualify for an article at all.--InaMaka (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, since you have decided to respond on my talk page, let me repeat that Moore really isn't qualified at all. Her only so-called "qualification" is that she was married to the Congressman from the 3rd district AND let me repeat that she is far behind Yoder in polls and she will not retain her dear hubby's seat. Facts are facts. Now, if you want to make the article indicate that she is qualified then be my guest, but as it is currently written there is NOTHING there to support an article about her.--InaMaka (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- You are not understanding what other people are saying. You may be correct about the notability of certain people, but the issue raised above is that you should not use such an edit summary. That issue should be discussed on this talk page, where you should acknowledge that such comments (in an edit summary) are not appropriate, particularly for a living person. Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, since you have decided to respond on my talk page, let me repeat that Moore really isn't qualified at all. Her only so-called "qualification" is that she was married to the Congressman from the 3rd district AND let me repeat that she is far behind Yoder in polls and she will not retain her dear hubby's seat. Facts are facts. Now, if you want to make the article indicate that she is qualified then be my guest, but as it is currently written there is NOTHING there to support an article about her.--InaMaka (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Once again, if you want to talk please go to the appropriate place. Stephene Moore does not qualify for an article at all.--InaMaka (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- You addressed whether Stephene Moore is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, and I agree that Talk:Stephene Moore is the place to discuss that. I questioning the appropriateness of the edit summary in which you stated that it Moore was "not really qualified" for office and it would be "fortunate" if she were to be "soundly beaten." Arbor832466 (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I responded to both Arbor832466 and Binksternet comments on the talk page of Stephene Moore, where the conversation really should be. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
BLP
Please take note of BLP Noticeboard: Stephene Moore [24] Arbor832466 (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Ann Dunham
I just reverted your addition. I will present my reasons on your Talk page. Yours in WPedia, Bellagio99 (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yup, I put it on the Dunham talk. That's what I meant to say. I was just giving you a Heads-Up about this. Sorry to be confusing. Bellagio99 (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Obama article probation
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Ann Dunham, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
My motivation
Please do not comment on my motivations or who you believe I am "working for" as you did in this edit summary [25]. You do not know what my motivations are, and your comments can be construed as a personal attack. Please refrain from personal attacks. Please focus your comments on improving articles. Have a great day!! Arbor832466 (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Me again. I'm not sure how to say this without coming off as a whiner, but your comments on talk pages and edit summaries always seem so... mean. I'm not saying they're wrong, and perhaps we got off on the wrong foot, but would it be possible to maybe try not to be so combative all the time? I am really just trying to be constructive and make good edits and at every turn I feel like I'm kind of being yelled at. So... olive branch? Okay? Arbor832466 (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi - Just an FYI that I'm removing your "Destruction" heading from my talk page. While I would have appreciated a heads up that I missed some articles when I went back and changed the tags from delete to merge, your apparent unwillingness to remain civil or assume good faith isn't productive or helpful for anybody. So, I'm going to go back and fix those articles, but I'm deleting your uncivil commentary as well. Thanks. Arbor832466 (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Personal Attacks
InaMaka, you need to refrain from personal attacks [[26]]. Thank you. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I commented on your personal attacks at Talk:Larry Bucshon and User talk:Arbor832466#Personal Attacks. I suggest you withdraw your unfounded claims asap. Flatterworld (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- See United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010#District 13 for an example of a merge from a (decently written yet still non-notable) candidate article (a DEMOCRAT you will note) to the event (election) article. Flatterworld (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- See Talk:Reid Ribble where I posted the following: Please stop the sarcasm and baseless claims. Read Wikipedia:Notability. Then read Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event, particularly: "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.". Finally, read: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians, particularly: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate." The problem with these 'articles' is that they are still nothing more than a rehash of the campaign material, accompanied by election numbers and 'forecasts' which belong in the election article anyway. Flatterworld (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- See Talk:Paul Gosar where I posted the following: Your attitude and false claims are getting extremely irritating. I improved a lot of articles, of both parties and probably some third parties as well, which should never have been created in the first place if we strictly followed Wikipedia guidelines. They originally consisted of no more than a link to the campaign site and some cut-and-paste efforts, much of which wasn't even grammatical when put together. Wikipedia is not a campaign brochure. In an attempt to encourage new volunteers and set a good example, I added formatting, structure, and non-partisan links. However, Jerzeykydd started turning out five-second trash articles faster than I could keep up. No one else was engaging in improving these articles, and that includes you. As I don't have unlimited time, I marked the remainder for Merge, still trying to avoid actually deleting them. I did two merges (one Democrat, then one Republican) to show the alternative available. I don't know what more I could have done to show good faith and being helpful. You, on the other hand, are taking the view that any and all trash articles are to be left as is. Wrong answer. You are welcome to try to improve them, but in the meantime you have no 'right' to have trash remain. Flatterworld (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- See Talk:Reid Ribble where I posted the following: Please stop the sarcasm and baseless claims. Read Wikipedia:Notability. Then read Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event, particularly: "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.". Finally, read: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians, particularly: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate." The problem with these 'articles' is that they are still nothing more than a rehash of the campaign material, accompanied by election numbers and 'forecasts' which belong in the election article anyway. Flatterworld (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- See United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010#District 13 for an example of a merge from a (decently written yet still non-notable) candidate article (a DEMOCRAT you will note) to the event (election) article. Flatterworld (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Robin Carnahan
Hi, you are revert warring against multiple editors, please stop. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Please take care, you are close to a report, attacking partisan contributions do none of us any good. I see you only add positive content to the rep Reid Ribble, yawn. Can you please edit in a WP:NPOV manner. Your adding of attack content and then shouting stop edit warring, when npov contributers attempt to tidy up and neutralize the content is the actual issue not your claims that you have a cite and wiki is not censored, no its not but we are not here to assist partisan users attack living people that they don't support, while the same users add nice happy content to the people they do support. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
fluff articles refers to the article not the candidate
I've stated this repeatedly, yet you continue to insist otherwise, now including that specious claim in edit summaries. Your rudeness, attacks and refusal to discuss the situation rationally are increasing rather than decreasing over time. Consider this your third and last warning before formal reporting. (And no, I'm hardly a 'relatively new editor'.) Flatterworld (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- And on another user's Talk page: User talk:Mockingbird99, after I spent much time trying to help him/her with an article. Flatterworld (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit Summary
Hi, InaMaka. Can you clarify for me what you meant by this edit summary? [27] Arbor832466 (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Again, InaMaka, please watch the tone in your edit summaries [28] [29] Arbor832466 (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to watch anything. You need to learn to find citations instead of just removing information you don't like.--InaMaka (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's not anybody's responsibility to clean up your uncited edits but your own. Thanks. Arbor832466 (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Responding to comment you left at my talk page :
- Wikipedia is not censored, true -- but it is EDITED. As an editing decision, I believe that 5 separate sentences for 5 separate opinions is piling on and coatracking, and is not needed to get the point across -- furthermore, if you can't be bothered to provide references for the readers of the article, why should what you say is "truth" stay in at all? You are amazingly fast to cry "Ownership!" and "Censorship!" when anybody disagrees with any of your editing decisions. Perhaps you should review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially the ones on verifiability and assuming good faith from those you (all too often!) perceive as your opponents. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Remember you are person that phrase "dumb bitch" in the Carrie Prejean article like five times. You are the LAST person to give anyone a lecture on editing behavior. Thank you very much.--InaMaka (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I remember that I wanted to leave Hilton's (counterproductive and stupid) quote rather than a paraphrase. I did not, would not, and would never call Prejean a dumb bitch, and your continual implications that I did are distressing, although admittedly pretty much what I have come to expect from you. I may have been wrong in Jimbo's eyes, and in the eventual consensus that formed against it, but my behavior has been largely impeccable, and if you differ, please file a RFC or an ANI report. Disagreeing with you is NOT a behavioral problem. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I never tried to imply that you would use that language toward Prejean. But it is true that you over quoted the phrase, just as you claim I did here. I accept your edits and your comments about only 3 references to the state of the race is enough. But I will not apologize for pointing out that you it is ALWAYS better to attempt to find citation than to just deleting the information.--InaMaka (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I remember that I wanted to leave Hilton's (counterproductive and stupid) quote rather than a paraphrase. I did not, would not, and would never call Prejean a dumb bitch, and your continual implications that I did are distressing, although admittedly pretty much what I have come to expect from you. I may have been wrong in Jimbo's eyes, and in the eventual consensus that formed against it, but my behavior has been largely impeccable, and if you differ, please file a RFC or an ANI report. Disagreeing with you is NOT a behavioral problem. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Remember you are person that phrase "dumb bitch" in the Carrie Prejean article like five times. You are the LAST person to give anyone a lecture on editing behavior. Thank you very much.--InaMaka (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not copy my comments from page to page -- if I had wanted them on my talk page, I would have put them there. I know that you, as an intelligent, literate person, are capable of following a discussion between two pages (although I should have put an explicit pointer back to my page above, which I will fix now) -- please extend to me the same. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Agenda-driven editing
I'm concerned that your participation on this project is driven by a political agenda, one that you advance with low-quality and tendentious edits to the biographies of candidates you disfavor. Moreover, I'm concerned by your use of sources - to take only one example, this recent edit is not supported by the source you cite, which doesn't even mention Moore in its text as best I can tell. Agenda-driven, politicized editing and misrepresentation of sources on biographical articles are two of the most harmful activities that an editor on this project can engage in. This edit summary tells me that you have no business editing biographical articles until you read and understand Wikipedia's policy on the subject. Please consider this a statement of concern and, if you like, a warning - you need to reassess your use of sources and consider whether you're here to push a political agenda. If your editing and compliance with Wikipedia policy doesn't improve substantially, your account is likely to be blocked. MastCell Talk 03:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't done anything wrong and I will not apologize and I have nothing to stop. Have a good day! BTW, there still is NO concensus that the Stephene Moore article qualifies for Wikipedia. The debate has only been pushed back until after the election. The edit that you refer to above stayed in the article because it was correct and it was supported by a three reliable sources. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"Edit wars"
Hi, InaMaka. Please stop accusing other editors of starting an edit war or engaging in censorship every time we try to clean up your poorly sourced edits. [30] [31] [32] It is no one's responsibility to find sources for your edits but your own. If you can't or don't care to find good sources, don't make additions. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- InaMaka, you need to STOP hurling accusations at any editor you happen to disagree with. See above and [33]. It's been a longstanding pattern and it needs to end now. Arbor832466 (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't done anything wrong and I will not apologize and I have nothing to stop. Have a good day! BTW, there still is NO concensus that the Stephene Moore article qualifies for Wikipedia. The debate has only been pushed back until after the election.--InaMaka (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Mike Fallon
Hi InaMaka,
Thank you for the encouragement. Can you help me get the "advertisement" flag removed from Mike Fallon?
Mockingbird99 (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
note 3rr
Stephene Moore
Please take this as a 3rr note and please stop reverting and move to discuss, multiple editors are reverting you, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello
|
You are invited to participate in WikiProject Houston, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about the Greater Houston area. |
Joe Miller (politician)
Please initiate whatever process you think will solve this problem. The other party obviously has an agenda and needs to have more to do. Thanks. {{Rosspz}}
Maddow, FOX, NPR, and Juan Williams
See NPR talk page.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC) See NPR talk page.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Freeze request
Because of the sudden surge in the past couple of days in deletes/redirects - with or without discussions but all without merges - I've requested a FREEZE on this (please read it) until after the election. Please check articles you're aware of, as they still display with a 'blue'link'. The deletes are being done by people I don't recognize being involved in any actual article work. Flatterworld (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
ANI
Since I quoted you, Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Michel Faulkner
Actually, I was editing the article first and when I went to save it your interim edits caused an edit conflict. I'm sorry you're having such a bad day. Flatterworld (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Believe whatever you want. I will put the NY Times and NY Daily News articles in the article. Period.--InaMaka (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit summaries, again
InaMaka, some of your edit summaries (eg [34], [35], [36]) raise serious concerns about your ability to edit in a neutral manner, particularly shortly before an election. Please dial back the partisanship or consider a break from editing. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about. You are bringing up edit summaries that you have pointed out in at least three different times--one made on 20 Sept 10. Really? 20 Sept 2010? You have to go back that far. Also, Southerland is winning. I stated a fact, not an opinion.--InaMaka (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not call edits 'vandalism' [37] when they clearly aren't. You are reminded to assume good faith. Any statement in a BLP that is uncited or where the source for the citation isn't clear may be challenged without prejudice to either the challenger or the person who supplied the text. Syrthiss (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
More uncivil, partisan edit summaries [38], [39], [40], [41]. Pull it together, InaMaka. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- No. Your comment is a bald-faced untruth. Rob attempted to delete a whole section of the article without attempting to fix it--without providing a good reason for the wholesale removal, etc. I pointed out in those edit summaries that the section is going to stay and that is a fact. Attempts to remove correct, positive information about a candidate the day before the election is just bad form. Remember you are person that about three weeks ago was attempted speedy delete about twenty articles about various Republican candidates--until you were stopped. So really you shouldn't be on your high horse.--InaMaka (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not on a horse of any kind, InaMaka, high or otherwise. And I attempted to merge fluff articles about candidates from both parties. Come on. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would like you to retract your accusation that I vandalized an article. I added fact required templates which you removed without citing them and as such left them again uncited in a BLP and I am well within guidelines to remove and ask you in the situation to cite them. Your personal attacks in your edit summaries are the thing that is uncivil and against guidelines. You should also read WP:VANDALISM to learn what it actually is.Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC) I Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not on a horse of any kind, InaMaka, high or otherwise. And I attempted to merge fluff articles about candidates from both parties. Come on. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- No. Your comment is a bald-faced untruth. Rob attempted to delete a whole section of the article without attempting to fix it--without providing a good reason for the wholesale removal, etc. I pointed out in those edit summaries that the section is going to stay and that is a fact. Attempts to remove correct, positive information about a candidate the day before the election is just bad form. Remember you are person that about three weeks ago was attempted speedy delete about twenty articles about various Republican candidates--until you were stopped. So really you shouldn't be on your high horse.--InaMaka (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Please don't cite to Google News
Hi. Thanks for introducing citations to news stories into articles. But please note that you shouldn't introduce cites to Google News into articles as you did here.
Links to Google News break very quickly since only the last 30 days of stories are retained on its site. ( I only learned of this recently myself, btw, when I saw mention of the problem in Template:Cite_news#Optional_parameters. ) Would you please revisit your edits on the article(s) (and anywhere else you might have cited Google News), find direct links to the underlying news article, and substitute the direct link(s) for the links to Google News? I, or other editors, might have already addressed one or more such instances, but it's a time-consuming process, and your review and assistance would be very greatly appreciated.
For content that's available from its original online publisher, it's probably best to find that, and link to it directly, if possible, but you can link to Google News Archive (external link here) for content that's not available online in its original context. Links to to Google News Archive are much more permanent, as I infer. But if you do so, please be careful to do two things:
- Please be sure you're using the cite news template for your cite, as you should to cite all news stories. The cite web template should never be used to cite news stories, and a bare http ref doesn't provide fields for metadata that needs to be included.
- Please be sure to place the link to the google-archived story in the optional "archive url" field of the "cite news" template, not in the plain "url" template field. If no direct link to the original publisher's site for the content can be found, the plain "url" field should be left blank in this case. Do not put the archived document's link in the plain "url" field. Failing to follow these caveats will cause links to appear in the references section that give our readers a mistaken impression as to the sourcing for the citation.
Most of the preceding is "boilerplate" text, btw, so it's possible that not all of it will apply to your edit(s). Sorry if that's the case, but the use of cites to Google News is such an extensive problem on Wikipedia, and I come across it so often, that it's just too inefficient to write a completely custom message to relay the same facts over and over. Thanks again for adding cites, and best regards, – OhioStandard (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
=Results of Election Not Certified
Please do not update the page with results that have not been certified by the Secretary of State
Moore
I think you are aware there are objection to the redirecting of the article so please don't do it. I suggest as there was a no consensus AFD in sept that if you want to delete and redirect that you sent it to AFD for discussion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- She lost. She has never held political office. She does not meet the requirements of having a Wikipedia article. I redirected as the rules state. She has never qualified. The discussion in September reached NO consensus so that discussion did not overturn the basic rules. Non-notable candidates are re-directed to where they belong.--InaMaka (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I assure you, I do not care about that. Please follow process, if there are objections and you know there are then ....AFD is the place to go, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I assure that I do not care what you think. I assure you that you don't tell me what to do. I assure you that will not do anything based upon your comments. I assure you that your comments are obnoxious. I assure you that your attitude violates good faith. I assure you that I have nothing more to say to you.--InaMaka (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I assure you, I do not care about that. Please follow process, if there are objections and you know there are then ....AFD is the place to go, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- She lost. She has never held political office. She does not meet the requirements of having a Wikipedia article. I redirected as the rules state. She has never qualified. The discussion in September reached NO consensus so that discussion did not overturn the basic rules. Non-notable candidates are re-directed to where they belong.--InaMaka (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Noticeboard
Please see the following discussion. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reading your edit history for the last few weeks, I notice that you quite often revert the same few users who do not appear to be acting as a concerted bloc. Wikipedia is built by consensus; especially when you find that several active editors in a topic area show concern with your edits, it is better by far to seek more discussion and outside input than to personalize a dispute. This is disruptive; please stop. More may be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User: InaMaka reported by User: Stonemason89 (Result: 1 week). A sampling of diffs in no particular order:
- accusation of bad faith; no discussion on the talkpage.
- accusation of bad faith against three other editors. The verifiability policy requires that material be sourced; unsupported material should be removed, and insulting your fellow volunteers for doing so is beyond the pale.
- edit warring, insulting language, and tendentious editing
- rudely dismissing another editor's concerns. Talking with another editor is the first step in dispute resolution; please consult that page for further advice.
- inappropriate edit summary. This is clearly tendentious, and borderline BLP.
- very clearly both tendentious and a BLP violation. Please in future refrain from any comments along those lines.
- accusation of bad faith without talkpage discussion.
- edit warring unsourced material, threat to continue same, and accusation of bad faith
- continuation of previous. Adding sources is great, but accusing another editor of vandalism for removing unsourced material is unacceptable.
- edit warring, misuse of sourcing, and arguably a BLP violation. Please read the biographies of living persons policy; while we should by no means whitewash articles on living people, ethics and policy both require us to be very *very* careful what we say and how we say it.
- tendentious edit summary. There is no reason to discuss your political views in an edit summary.
- violation of BLP, tendentious commentary, and misleading edit summary. Your opinion regarding whether someone is qualified for office is not relevant to improving the article.
When this block expires, please remember to be especially careful when making statements regarding living persons, and to seek and adhere to consensus formed through discussion with other editors. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Arbor8 (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)