User talk:InaMaka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III.
Any sections older than 2 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.
Archive
Archives (Index)
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Sidney Blumenthal

Regarding this series of edits,[1][2][3] 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)

[edit] Something to read

Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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. Grsz11 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 | 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)

[edit] Looking over your talk page...

...I see that you might need to learn policies better. Would you be interested in adoption? Basketball110 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 -- Basketball110 02:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility warning

For this edit[4]. 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.[5][6] 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 | 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?[7]. 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.[8] [9] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Barack Obama

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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama#Let.27s_see_whether_you_really_have_a_.22new_consensus.22_.28version_2.29

Thanks. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)