User talk:Oprahwasontv

Oprah was on tv but now she isn't.

Unblock
Well, I'm sure there's something. Cheers, Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  02:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Attack
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on this page, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because the article is a page created primarily to disparage its subject or a biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to. (CSD G10).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting the article, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate the article itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply re: gaffe pages
I'm not the one who nominated either for deletion in any capacity. While I realize some news sources may have published such articles, however, Wikipedia strives to have articles that are impartial in tone, which these by definition probably can't be. I respect what you're doing, I'm just trying to explain the stance your articles' detractors probably have taken up. I can really see the issue both ways here, so I'm afraid I have to abstain on this issue. - Vianello (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP and Carly Fiorina
Please take a look at WP:BLP. Carly Fiorina is a living person, and we have a duty to treat the article about her with a reasonable level of common sense: your comment on that article's talk page was not helpful, it was imprecise, and it introduced a whole host of clearly irrelevant and potentially misleading innuendo. She has talked about her and her husband's attempts to have children, and that is cited in the article. I'm not sure that it's incredibly important to the article, but the manner in which you brought it up was really over the top, and a WP:BLP violation in and of itself. user:j   (aka justen)   05:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

notice of 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 is on article probation.

Blocked
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.

That's enough. You match Dereks1x's MO quite closely, as numerous admins have attested. Please don't cite the checkuser results again; I'm familiar with them as well as with your ability to avoid leaving a trail of technical evidence with most of your socks. You're being independently disruptive in any case on articles surrounding the 2008 Presidential Election in the US, which are already contentious enough. I will leave a note for, but given that a number of admins have remarked on your disruption and marked similarities with Dereks1x, I'm not sure it will change things. MastCell Talk 19:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Clarification: I have not cleared this user of sockpuppetry. Indeed, I think it is very likely that this user is a sockpuppet.  I merely let this user know that she would be blocked even if she were not a sockpuppet, as stated in the block log. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me say this very clearly. Above, you misrepresented me.  If you remove my clarification again, I will protect this page from further edits.  You may not misrepresent me in order to defend yourself. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is my talk page. Please, FisherQueen don't be heavy handed. I have made edits to quote you directly instead of making a summary. FisherQueen, be reasonable. My Obama and McCain edits are well researched and hold up to the standard. I discussed it unlike the reverters. I also did not re-revert. So who is being unreasonable, not me. Oprahwasontv (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Context: see this diff, in which the user undoes his attempt to claim that I have declared him innocent. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Background: AN thread, also an old AN thread from 2007 providing pretty clear evidence that this is a Dereks1x/Archtransit sock. Not sure how this slipped through the cracks and became a recurrent problem. MastCell Talk 21:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is only a problem because of your conclusion that "everyone I hate who edits Obama is Derek" This is a flawed conclusion.  Furthermore, I am not anti-Obama and pro-McCain as you can see in my edits.  Please be reasonable MastCell. Oprahwasontv (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are reasonable, MastCell, you will unblock on the condition that I will discuss it with several admin. Instead, you attack me with false accusations of being a Derek sock.  It's too easy to say that if the RFCU says you are a sock, you are.  If it doesn't I say you are.  Oprahwasontv (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Diffs of disruptive edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=234625530

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=prev&oldid=234625531

Hardly disruptive as the section is called "Cultural and Political Images of Obama (or McCain)." The section title doesn't say "Favorable Cultural and Political Images of McCain (or Obama).