User talk:Ingrid4hubby

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Deb (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

There is already an article on Racism. It is not clear what you are trying to do that is different. The article you submitted was entitled Racism in Wikipedia but it did not cover that topic. Deb (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, you haven't completely read the title to my article. The title is: 'Racism In Wikipedia'. The article is not about racism in general. It is about racism and discrimination that wiki users have experienced. For example, a user adds info on an article to correct the author of that article which is based on race, ethnicity, etc. But, the author deletes that info and doesn't provide any reasons why he committed such an action. However, the user feels his info was correct. But because of the bias and prejudice of the author, the user has no recourse and no voice in the matter. The user therefore feels bias and prejudiced that info about his race/ethnicity was not reflected on the article. There are many upon many users who have felt discriminated and I am now in contact with many who will provide sources to my article. I will be completing the article and publishing it to wiki soon.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course I read the title, hence my comment above. You did not write about that subject.  You just wrote about racism.  Be very careful if you intend to make any accusation of racism against a living person, whether or not they are a wikipedian.  If you do not include independent published sources, any such material will be deleted. Deb (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. There is no such word as "prejudism". Deb (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand what you're saying. And believe me, I will not refer directly to a living person of racism or discriminatory statements that that person may or may not have made, even if they're a wiki person. But, I will refer indirectly without mentioning names (i.e., "in article so-and-so, such and such comment was made...." etc.). Again, no names will be mentioned at all.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Castles in Europe
I have nominated Castles in Europe, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Castles in Europe. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Apbiologyrocks (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article, 'Castles', may exist, but the author is stubborn about allowing users to add accurate info and is bias against certain regions of Europe. The author seems discriminatory against certain info. I find this not in keeping with wiki's universal policy. I had no choice but to create a modified article called, 'Eurpoean Castles' with accurate info. For example, a particular castle in Spain is called, 'King Charles V's Castle'. The old and unused name of the castle is, 'Alcázar of Segovia'. Everyone in Spain has called this castle by, 'King Charles V's Castle', for 500 years, not 'Alcazar of Segovia'. The author refuses to accept this fact, though I provided solid sources supporting this historic truth. The author is biased against Spanish historical inferences for reasons I have yet to understand. He is not flexible. If he can remove his biasness, and allow me to add my info backed by sources, then I will not create a new article. However, if the author continues to be stubborn and discriminatory about the matter, I will have no choice but to create an accurate version. Fair is fair.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no single author for an article. If you disagree with the presentation of material in the article, discuss the matter at its talk page—which, based on your edit history, you have made no effort to do. —C.Fred (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the AfD discussion at Articles for deletion/Castles in Europe is now closed. If you disagree with the closing, contact the closing administrator directly at his talk page.C.Fred (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean there's no single author for the article? In the past, my info has been deleted by ONE person who claimed to be the author of the article. This doesn't make sense. I think you mistake author for administrator. I believe this means one and the same. Also, I did make much effort in discussing with the administrator or author about this matter but I used another name. He just doesn't listen at all. He's stubborn and discriminatory. Can you contact him about this so that he doesn't thwart my efforts in contributing to that article? I'd appreciate it alot.
 * Also, when you say I should contact the author or administrator of the article, do you mean that I should address these issues on the 'discussion' link found on the article?

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Reminder
Don't forget to log in using your user account when you contribute to articles or talk pages. If you don't do this, some people may think that you are trying to conceal your identity. Deb (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Block notice
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.
 * Well, it's about time that CJ DUB got blocked. But he should be blocked for a longer period of time, in my opinion. A 24 hour block on this anti-european, sexless american isn't enough. He keeps coming back, like he's obsessed with me. The guy is really weird! But, at least he's been blocked. Maybe this will teach him respect. No wonder people hate americans.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

For your information: the block affected only you. Please exercise more restraint. Thank you. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(Originally posted on talk:Castle, but cross-posted here to make sure Ingrid4hubby doesn't miss the message) Ingrud4hubby, CJ DUB has never been blocked, just take a look at the block log. You on the other hand have been blocked for making personal attacks (check your block log). If you continue to be abusive, you will be blocked for longer than 24 hours. Consider this your final warning on the matter. Nev1 (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. I was never blocked since I have always been able to edit articles with no problem. I think you mean CJ DUB. And, Seb, why does CJ DUB keep bothering me and others? I seriously don't understand why he's angry at people just because they don't agree with him, his american culture, or his politics. I would never waste my time harassing others like he's doing, unless I had alot of time on my hands. I'm going on vacation soon, so hopefully when I return, he will have cooled off. Nobody here needs to be disrespected.
 * And, no disrespect to you or your american way of life, but I notice that americans on wiki think they should be right about everything. That's not right. There are other voices who contribute to wiki too and should be able to correct an article without reprimand, disrespect, or having their material (even with reliable sources) suddenly deleted, just because their info deviates from the american point of view on wiki. And then when people provide the info and sources, they get laughed at and harassed about it. That's not right. This behavior motivates others to not look at americans in a good light. I wish people in general were in control of wiki. Sadly, it seems as though the american voice is the only voice that controls and matters on wiki. Anyway, that's my two cents for what it's worth.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC) You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.


 * What kind of editing do you plan to do if unblocked? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Actually, your use of multiple accounts in violation of the rules is precisely the point. If I was in a situation in which there was a large community of experienced people, and I did something that resulted in my being blocked, and nothing bad happened to the others, and no one at all took my side, no matter how many uninvolved people I asked to review my situation, but instead, they all said that I was in the wrong, I would take a deep, calming breath and carefully consider the possibility that I might be in the wrong. But that's just me; you may behave differently. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Castle
You feel that the current castle article is biased. Setting aside previous events, would you like to explain here, in clear terms, what you would like to see happen to the article to make it better in your opinion? On the talk page, your original point of was lost in the maelstrom a maelstrom of accusations of discrimination. You said that it was too focussed on England, France, Spain, and Germany and that "there is hardly any mention of portuguese castles and European countries that have made significant contributions to castle building and design". The article is not perfect, and providing reliable source (not encyclopedias or travel guides mind) would certainly help, or at the very least some titles of books you think would be useful in expanding the article would be helpful.

If you want to be unblocked, you must convince administrators that "the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead". This will not be achieved through attacks, but working constructively to improve the castle article through discussion here would be a good first step. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that this person is still creating sockpuppets, I don't think an unblock is in the future. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Attack
Please refrain from disparaging other cultures and languages. "Drek" (דרעק) is Yiddish and labeling an entire language-group as "homosexual" is not appropriate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Drek" and "Chummer" are also shadowspeak, a fact which anyone with Google can figure out if they go places other than UrbanDictionary. In the latter's case, there's no sexual overtones. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 20:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this user already knows this. If anyone monitoring this talk page thinks I should not disable this user's ability to edit the talk page, say so before I log back in for breakfast around 11:00 UTC. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)