User talk:InaMaka/Archive 4

Alec Baldwin
If you have a problem with my edit of Alec Baldwin, take it to the talk page please. ► RATEL ◄ 22:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your refusal to discuss the issue on the talk page and false claim of BLP violations when mentioning factual information about a person involved in the personal life of Baldwin amounts to vandalism, which I have now reported to admins. ► RATEL ◄ 21:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you aware of the WP:3RR rule (in reference to your edit warring of Alec Baldwin)? ► RATEL ◄ 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Before you break any more rules, I suggest you discuss the issue here. ► RATEL ◄ 23:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Golden Compass
I hope you understand that my revert was not intended to be disruptive, as I presented the passage on the talk page for wider analysis. This is just a mild dispute about content, so there's no need to suggest vandalism on anyone's part. (Speaking from experience, that kind of implication is never favorable.) I'm positive that all editors involved want an updated and accurate article, so hopefully the my revision is a step closer to that. Feel free to weigh in, or even revert wholesale -- I'll give you that one. ;) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you for explaining. I hope you can resolve matters with the other editor, then! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you recently removed the statement that international figures for the film were "solid." You were absolutely right to do so, as the cite does not say that. However, I will say, in the interests of not showing previous editors of the article to be making stuff up, that it did indeed contain that statement at one point; i.e. it has since been changed by Reuters. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 01:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sidney Blumenthal
Regarding this series of edits, would you please join me on Talk:Sidney Blumenthal to discuss why you believe Sidney Blumenthal's recent arrest deserves its own section in his biography? I've already posted a comment about why it does not. You have reverted without explaining. I don't want to get it into an edit war or bring it to WP:BLP/N before discussing the matter - perhaps we can talk this through. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Something to read
Sock puppetry

Trying to evade Wikpedia policy (inclusding 3RR) by using multiple accounts is not permissible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.6.152 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Golly, who is the liar here???--InaMaka (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton
He spoke at my university Wednesday, and I guarantee they didn't pay him. Why? Because he was campaigning. Please review WP:CIVIL, rather than essentially calling other users liars, when you don't know the story.  Grsz  11  02:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, he got paid somehow. What do think campaign contributions are???--InaMaka (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Campaign contributions are the only way, in our present U.S. political system, that a person can run for office. It could be argued that this should be changed; but in the meantime, to imply that a campaign contribution is the same as paying a candidate, is a falsification. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No it is not. If Bill Clinton takes a portion of the campaign contribution for his own uses, which he does, then it is the same as getting paid.  I respect your right to your opinion, but just because you have an opinion that does not make my position a "falsification" nor does it make me incorrect.  Thank you for expressing your opinion though, but that's all it is.  It is not truth. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking over your talk page...
...I see that you might need to learn policies better. Would you be interested in adoption? Basketball 110  00:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Basketball110: I'm sure that you mean well, but I don't need to learn the policies.  You are making huge assumptions that the comments on my user talk page are based on anything close to reality.  Most of the negative comments on my talk page are based upon the incorrect assumptions and prejudices of the individuals who made them.  Also, unlike you I do not feel the need to have other Wikipedians like me.  I don't know them personally.  And I never, ever will.  I will never, ever attend one of those Wikipedia Fests or whatever they are called because I do have a life outside of Wikipedia.  Most of the comments above (on my talk page) come from people that really do care way, way, way too much about Wikipedia and as such they do not have a life.  I have come to learn that there are just certain Wikipedians that will never, ever like me.  And I don't care.  They will find some policy somewhere and they claim--regardless of the facts staring them in the face--that I broke that policy and they will write up a nasty comment on my talk page for people like you to see and then you comment on it.  Eventually, there will be enough Wikipedians--with similar (political) viewpoints to them and they will form a gang and they will start a Request for Comment page on me.  Now, this RFC page is the Star Chamber of all Wikipedian Star Chambers.  This gives everyone, no matter if they have reviewed my work or not, the ability to slam me until they finally just get tired.  When and if I ever start editing again they will slam me until they get tired again and it will be based upon my work or the merits of any particular edit, but it will be based upon the fact that I had the temerity to point out that Wikipedia articles MUST be consistent across all categories and topics.  Case in point:  a few Wikipedians have taken upon themselves to remove MOST of the information in the Sidney Blumenthal bio about his drunk driving conviction.  They have based that upon their personal belief that mentioning drunk driving convictions is a violation of BLP.  But of course mentioning drunk driving convictions is NOT a violation of BLP.  There is no set rule against it in the Wikipedian rules.  But more importantly there are TONS of articles that mention drunk driving convictions.  Just take a quick look at Mel Gibson's article, specifically the section called "Alcohol Abuse".  Also, take a look at the article on Mel Gibson's drunk driving conviction =  Mel Gibson DUI incident.  The wonderful liberals that attack me on my talk page have even placed a picture of Mel's mugshot on the Wikipedia page.  The article dedicated to Gibson's drunk driving convictions is very, very long and detailed.  Now, when I mentioned these FACTS to the particular Wikipedians that kept removing the Blumenthal drunk driving conviction I was told that what happens on the Mel Gibson articles has NOTHING to do with the Blumenthal article.  Now, I tell you these facts because you are coming to my talk page and reading just a few of the incorrect and fales comments on my page and you are jumping to conclusions about me.  I know the rules.  I probably know the rules better than you do.  But I don't know.  But I do know that I don't want you to ADOPT me.  I just want you to understand that, yes, Wikipedia does not have qualifications or requirements to edit.  But I can handle myself just fine.  Also, I have a life, where I have adopted two REAL children and I have a wonderful life.  When the Wikipedian, liberal thought police finally come for me with their RFC then I will quietly fade away from Wikipedia again.  That's just the way that it works.  If you really want to assist Wikipedia and make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia then you should use your time to make Wikipedia consistent across the board.  Liberals such as Blumenthal should get the same treatment in Wikipedia as the conservatives such as Gibson.  You would then be making a real contribution to the development of Wikipedia.--InaMaka (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I wish you good luck, and hope you have fun. Remember editing is a hobby! Cheers, happy editing, and goodbye -- Basketball  110  02:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility warning
For this edit. Surely you know better than to use my talk page to complain about me to another Wikipedian. Wikidemo (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Second warning. Please stop trolling my talk page.  These edits are simple harassment, not in good faith.  Wikidemo (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I have a right to express my opinion about your uncivil behavior.--InaMaka (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:POINT. Misuse of our civility (or any other) policies in order to score "points" against another editor is inappropriate and disruptive. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you make that comment toward Wikidemo also, otherwise you are getting involved in a dispute between two editors and are attempting to intimidate me into backing down from from my contention that Wikidemo needs to engage in civil behavior also. Please read the rules for civility yourself.--InaMaka (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are wrong. I have a right to express my opinion and I'm sorry if you believe that my right to express my opinion is "inappropriate or disruptive."  I guess, for you at least, democracy gets in the way of the smooth, non-conflict operations.  Oh, by the way, if I was Wikidemo I would have called your comments on my talk page "trolling" but I didn't.  That's the difference between me and the other editor.--InaMaka (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You won't stop, will you?. Okay, I have left my warnings.  Just don't do it again. Wikidemo (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your your so-called "warnings" are the meaningless comments of someone who acts uncivil toward others and then attempts to browbeat them into bowing down to your uncivil comments. The amazing part is that you brought other Wikipedians into the situation to add to the attempt to indimidate.  Your actions are, in the words of OrangeMike, "inappropriate" and "disruptive".  Once again, I have asked you not to communicate with me any longer.  Why can't you respect that request.  Is it because you are acting in an uncivil manner? Of course, it is. Please curtail your behavior.--InaMaka (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record I was not asked until now not to communicate with this editor, and Orangemike was admonishing this editor, not me. At this editor's request I will not engage in any non-essential communication; however, it is always appropriate to leave good faith warnings and notices on a user page.Wikidemo (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, Wikidemo has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he engages in uncivil and inappropriate behavior. I have asked him two times to STOP all communications with me, but he constantly go on.  Once again, Wikidemo, do NOT speak to me. STOP, get it???--InaMaka (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never been uncivil. I understand that you want to have the last word but you really need to stop this. Wikidemo (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep responding?? Is it because you want the last word? Of course, it is.  You are doing all of the things that you claim that I have been doing.  Do you know what projection is?  You should look it up on Wikipedia.--InaMaka (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Third warning - you are continuing to wikistalk and harass, after being warned before.  Stop it now, or you will eventually be blocked, probably long term. Wikidemo (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, you are NOT an admin, even though you are pretending to be one with your false "warnings" and second the edits that you call "wikistalk[ing] and harass[ment]" are perfectly valid editorial comments. Third, you do not have the right to remove other editors comments.  That is vandalism and I called it what it is.  You don't like the fact that I called your inappropriate removal of my comments vandalism but that is your opinion.  The rules of Wikipedia are VERY, VERY, CLEAR about this topic:  you do not have the right to remove other editors comments.  Now stop the vandalism.  And stop the false warnings.  They are inappropriate.--InaMaka (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)