User:Arbor8/sandbox/appendix3

This case should be taken especially seriously because of the particularly combative, unconstructive and frequently POV nature of the sockmaster’s edits. The following is a sample of talk page comments which illustrates this destructive behavior and illuminates my reasons for no longer assuming good faith.

Corbridge
Please do not make up facts. You might disagree with things that I said, but you cannot make up facts. I did not make any comments directly at anyone's character. That is just false. Please stop immediately.--Corbridge (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * User talk: Corbridge - Civility

No, do not edit my words. They are my words, not yours. You can start your own discussion and title it. Thank you.
 * Talk: Scott Walker

calmed down the breathless, undue weight apply to kiddie campaign.
 * Scott Walker

You are right. It is a dead issue; however, your claim that OFW is only a law firm and it refers to itself as only a law firm is still incorrect. Also, the fact that you stated that I was incorrect for referring to as OFW refers to itself as a law and lobbying firm was incorrect. The main point being that you stated that I was incorrect when in fact you were incorrect. No amount of talking will change and fact.--Corbridge (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * User talk:KeptSouth – SHS

No. You cannot comment on any "pattern". I pointed out that you do not own the article. I pointed out and I will point out again that the quote field is a valid field and it can be used in any number of ways. It is not limited to just what you believe that it is for. I have grown tired of your "pattern" of what appears to be creating rules for Wikipedia when there are edits that you do not personally like from a style point of view. I believe that the quotes add information that is notable and important but does not necessarily fit into the flow of the article. I have grown tired of your belief that if you don't like the quote field others cannot use it or it can only be used as you see fit. There are no rules such as you outline above. It is just your particular personal preference, nothing more. I have grown tired of your "pattern" in telling others that those quote fields can only be used according to your personal belief in style.--Corbridge (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk: Stephanie Herseth Sandlin – Quote field in refs

Inamaka
She's really not qualified to be a Congressman, but fortunately she will get soundly beaten in November.
 * Stephene Moore

You don't like it. You fix it. you are making the complaint. Dont' just mark it. Fix it.
 * Larry Bucshon

No. That's not going to work. Now that was just an example of disrupting Wikipedia is prove a point. That section will remain. Period.
 * Bill Flores

Seems like Southerland is beating Boyd like an old mule.
 * Steve Southerland

I have reviewed your other edits to other articles and I will continue to do that in the future to look for signs of more attempts by you to call edits you don't like vandalism. I don't know how I can be more clear than I have been in this posting. But let me repeat for you one more time. You violate Wikipedia policy when you call a valid edit vandalism simply because you don't like the edit from an editorial point of view. Please stop this behavior immediately.
 * User talk: Arbor8 – Hogwash left on my talk page

I have no idea what you are talking about. How long I have edited is not important. I have reviewed your edits and you don't seem to know what you are doing. So there. Is this moronic conversation finished now? You started editing in 2009. However, you claim to be someone else. I don't know if that is true or not, but what difference does it make. You need to focus you comments on making articles better not whether I am a new editor or not. That is irrelevant, bogus hocum. Have a wonderful day!--InaMaka (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * User talk: Myownworst

There was no personal attack. It is a fact that you made up a rule about being ahead in the election is not enough to justify an article. That is simply not true. And I am going to point out when you make up things. Also, this is out of control. You and Flatterworld have taken upon yourself to merge articles, such as the article about Larry Bucshon. This is censorship, pure and simple and it will stop.--InaMaka (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * User talk: Arbor8 – Personal Attacks

Wow. You just made up a whole bunch of rules that do not exist in Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with the information. The information does not violate any rules. What we have here is the you don't want the information in the article. It is merely your personal preference. But just because you don't like the information does not mean that the information is "problematic" or whatever you stated. InaMaka (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk: Bill Flores

Let me help you out. I will make edit summaries like that one any time I want to. I don't take order from you. You do not rule Wikipedia. I will not apologize for what I wrote. NEVER. … Now, let me point out one more time to you. I don't take order from you and I will not apologize to you or anyone else. You should learn the phrase "good faith" means.--InaMaka (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC) … I will edit as I see fit, not as you see fit. Your comments are hogwash and they are rejected summarily.--InaMaka (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * User talk: Stonemason

Getaway
No you will not place conclusionary BS comments on my talk page.
 * User talk: Getaway

removed BS Democrat POV.
 * David Dewhurst

Explained why I removed the racist, toothless hillbilly Democratic Underground BS.
 * Talk: Condoleezza Rice

You do not know anything about those previous run-ins with other editors. You weren't there. You have not gone back and read all of them. You don't have enough information to comment. I want you to provide me with horrible word that I called this particular editor. The one that engaged in an edit war with me, but he has the gall to threaten to call an admin on me for 3RR. Also, did you know that threatening to call an admin over is against Wikipedian policy also??? Did you? Did you go to his/her talk page and write a nastygram over there about not engaging in threats about calling in an admin?? As of the time that I am writing this message, I don't see a warning from you on that issue on that editor's talk page. Don't lecture me. I did NOT engage in a personal attack. Your accusation is wrong. These types of warnings is part of what is wrong with Wikipedia.--Getaway 21:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * User talk: Dcooper – Another warning about personal attacks

I never stated that you were "deliberately falsifying sources." Making that charge against me without having anything to back it really must be embarassing for you. Please follow the rules of Wikipedia and do not attempt to put words in my mouth and then give me a lecture about something that I never did. It is not professional.--Getaway 02:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk: Robert Byrd – Slate does not meet Wikipedia’s standard for a reliable source

I responded on your talk page. Don't talk to me any longer. Just because you are wrong, it is not my problem.--Getaway 20:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * User talk: Getaway – Civility

I have nothing to apologize for and I won't. You simply do not like what I have to say. That is simply a disagreement of opinion. You don't like it. That is your opinion, but your dislike of my opinion does NOT make my opinion inappropriate. I don't see what you are accomplishing from this discussion. You do not like what I have to say about your behavior that is not against the Wikipedian rules, it is simply something that you don't like. There is a huge difference. Have a good day!--Getaway 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * User talk: Getaway – Altering warning templates

Generally, I find your comments long-winded and self-centered and as such they are unproductive. Once again, I will continue to edit as I see fit and you will just have to deal with it. Have a good day! And seriously, do not respond to me again because I don't find your comments productive. As far as I can tell you spend a huge amount of time justifying why your edits are the only reasonable choice when there are usually four, five, six reasonable choices. --Getaway 20:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * User talk: PelleSmith – Snide comments are not helpful

When I find BS on other pages, such as Secularism, I am going to point it out too. For example, there is a commentary of a Wikipedian in that article that stated something to the effect that decisions are being made on stem cell research based upon religion, etc. What hogwash!!! It will be removed. That is just BS propaganda. I know you don't like me saying that but that is just your opinion.--Getaway 15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * User talk: PelleSmith – Language

You are willing to comment on my irrelevant political beliefs even though you don't know me or anything about me. This says a lot about your hubris. You obviously have a lot of it. Hey, I have an idea. Why don't you focus on the article and not me?? How about it, huh? Because if you did then you wouldn't make the glaringly incorrect comments like you did about the irrelevant topic of my political beliefs. Now, let's talk about Hillary Clinton. She claims not to be a lesbian, but can we be sure? Can we even be sure of anything? Well, yes. We can be sure how you got your Wikipedia moniker.--Getaway 12:59, 27
 * Talk: Sam Brownback – Opus Dei POV commentary

Keetoowah
Look CJ: I'm not going to change my behavior because I have nothing that needs to be changed.
 * User talk: Keetoowah – Conversations

→Military Service: Kerry, Dukakis, Gore Are All Losers. Big Time.
 * Talk: Donald Rumsfeld

→Poll on TotallyDisputed tag: Keep the Tag on the Piece of Crap.)
 * Talk: George W. Bush

Thomas is NOT one of the most conservative justices in the history of the Court, that is just a bias, damn liberal lie and must be removed.
 * Clarance Thomas

Adding more fact and no snotty little Byrd apologist will remove it.
 * Robert Byrd

Revert the moron work.
 * Paul Martin

Ward Churchill is a BS scam artist.
 * User talk: Esperant

Reverted the lies and BS of SlimVirgin. Don't change it again. This is the statement of the tribe. Don't make excuses for the fake Indian again.
 * Ward Churchill

Since we are on the topic of offering unsolicited advise, I would suggest that you make the changes to the stem cell article that you think need to be changed because I'm not apologizing to you and I'm not changing any of my behaviors and you are simply wasting your time asking me to change because it ain't gonna happen. -Keetoowah 30 June 2005 16:52 (UTC)

I did not personally attack anyone. And don't tell me to keep calm. You keep calm. I just simply pointed out that the editors involved do not know what they talking about. This is factually true and I will repeat this each and every time that I feel that it is necessary. No one else here has legal training but yet they are pretending to know what they are talking about. It is fine not to have legal training and attempt to edit the document but if they get the basic facts wrong then I will point it out. As I told the last person who gave me this lecture: I do not need the lecture, you need the lecture. You simply do not like the facts of the situation and you are attempting to attack me personally because the facts of the situation are not on your side.Keetoowah 11:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Talk: Guantanimo Bay

Removed the biased, non-NPOV opinion of some Wikipedia. It is only some faceless Wikipedian's opinion. No source for the non-NPOV essay, commentary. Removed summarily. … Removed the cheerleader wording of the suck-up, sycophantic Wikipedian, sucking up to a dying, financially strapped radio network.
 * Requests for Arbitration: Keetoowah – Evidence