User talk:Wallamoose

Welcome

Hello, Wallamoose! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 23:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Candyland

I don't see why it shouldn't be included. However, I'd post it to the talk page first to get consensus. The reason I say that is this is obviously a controversial subject. If you add it to the article first, some editors would probably remove it for some reason. If you get consensus first and if most everyone agrees to add it, the people who remove it would be going against consensus. I hope this helps. Cheers! Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 01:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The truth?

I have provided sourced documentation demonstrating various factual innacuracies in the sexual harassment section. A couple have been remedied, but others remain and the section is grotesquely biased as it contains allegations made by persons never called to testify before the committee . (Wallamoose (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

The "truth" - so-called "factual inaccuracies" - do not matter in Wikipedia.Bearian (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

RafaelRGarcia has stated in the Discussion section of the Clarence Thomas article that Clarence Thomas is a "Perv". He deleted some of my talk comments. He has knowingly attempted to maintain false information on the Clarence Thomas page. I have tried to follow the rules of Wikipedia using the dicsussion page and RafaelRGarcia's talk page to communicate and explain why corrections to the Clarence Thomas Page are needed. Here is one example: The article states, "Rose Jourdain testified that Wright had discussed Thomas' behavior with her at the time it occurred, and that she had considered it sexual harassment."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/921012/archive_018473_9.htm Paragraph three talks about Rose Jourdain never testifying.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/browse.html Is an official government website including a complete witness list and all documents included in the record.

As you can see, I have been diligent in providing verifiable and well sourced proof for my case. This has been met with harassment and attempts to have me banned. I hope you can look into this situation and prevent RafaelRGarcia from continuing his abusive behavior. Thank you. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

If you're being harassed by another editor, there are several options open to you. First, gather up the diffs so you can give evidence when explaining the situation. Then, you'll want to file a WikiEdiquitte Alert or a Request for Comment, whichever you feel is more appropriate for the situation. I haven't been able to look into the situation at all, since I've been extraordinarily been the last few days, so I can't tell you much more than that. Useight (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Buddy Holly

The changes are for the better. let me know if I can help with anything else. Alansohn (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I did look around yesterday to see if there's a clear policy on this, but couldn't find anything helpful. It certainly would be policy to move that kind of detailed coverage from Rangel's own article to a separate article about Rangel's financial issues - but I don't believe such an article exists, and I question whether the topic is notable enough for such an article to be created. So I'm not sure. I happened to look at the article for other information, and was just struck by the cursory biographical notes in comparison with the current news reporting.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

A Friend in Need is Friend Indeed

Well, you're right. It does happen all the time. Basically all you can do is what you're already doing. It should eventually work it self out and I'll keep an eye on it. Let me know if you need anything else. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 23:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Use the Force Luke

I think your real issue is that the Clarence Thomas article has given undue weight to past allegations from well-sourced New York Times articles, which lends a "liberal slant" to the Thomas article. Am I correct in my assessment? If so, then what you need to do is find your own good and relevant souces to balance the article. Wikipedia, you see, is not based on the truth, but on certain core values, such as notability, consensus, and verifiability. If you can't do that, then Conservapedia may be where you want to do more work. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Pee Wee Herman

I've reverted your changes to Linda Greenhouse as POV, as an apparent misrepresentation of the source.

Uh, again. Read the source carefully, and you'll see there is no real criticismSomeguy1221 (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article is: "Critics Question Reporter's Airing of Personal Views". (Wallamoose (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

Quoting from Newspapers

The section I removed was that culled verbatim from the Newsweek article. The edits performed on the remainder of the (non-copied) section were matters of style and accuracy, and the least you could do would be to preserve those as good faith and paraphrase the rest of the material. I'm not trying to cause trouble, but you're reverting legitimate edits... Travishing (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The section I added was included on the discussion page of the article, and that's probably the best place to discuss this. Removing entire sections of sourced, verifiable, and notable material is not a legitimate edit. It's my experience that paraphrasing often results in people questioning whether every single word is actually in the article sourced. So you're correct that I stuck very close to the sources for the information I added. (Wallamoose (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

Clarence Thomas

I agree that cited pages 442-511 is not very good, it is a huge document and the relevant information is impossible to find. Useight (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Dreams and Hope

REPOST OF MY COMMENTS:

Stop deleting my edits. If you want to add a citation tag that's fine. But my link (unlike yours) includes detailed information on page numbers and links to the pdf files. I have been very generous in not removing your extraneous and biased edits. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

No, it doesn't include detailed info.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The citation gives page numbers yet you continue to remove it. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

RafaelGarcia's bad citations have been tagged for a long time. He has already been reprimanded for removing my citations and asked (again) to fix his (the ones I appropriately tagged specifically and that were already noted on the talk page and with a tag above the citations on the bottom of the article page). The RfC on the Thomas page and all of the dicussions have supported adding the information (only a single paragraph so far) of sourced material. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Wallamoose is lying. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm including information here that is not on the Clarence Thomas talk page to preserve a more complete record or your abusive and biased edits. Unlike you I don't delete everything I disagree with or scrub conflicts that might make me look bad. The record speaks for itself, I'm not perfect, but my edits are in good faith and consistent with the values of Wikipedia.

This contrasts with the sexual allegations section in which you've repeatedly tried to call new witnesses some 15 years after the hearings and keep adding new material. Many editors have asked you to cut the section down and balance it, but you've refused.

You are obviously a sick and delusional individual. Despite being caught in lie after lie you continue to harass me. Please refrain from posting on my talk page. (Wallamoose (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Zen Buddhism

Kill them with kindness. CENSEI (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You are of course right, but I'm frustrated. Frankly, I was hoping with the RfC that I requested some time age, someone else would make the effort to balance and edit the article. I'm sick of dealing with a crazy stalker and his (smallish) band of fools. Also, I am AMAZED that anyone would argue the sexual allegations might have been the only issue in Clarence Thomas's nomination. And the efforts to smear a Supreme Court Justice with one sided POV is pretty disgusting. It's this kind of ignorance and radicalism that causes a lot of the world's problems. No joke. Thanks for your effort to encourage calm. I should take up yoga, or at least have some yogurt. Take care. And if I may be so bold as to offer a suggestion back: don't involve yourself in this dispute. It's not worth it. Many editors have tried to reason with Garcia. He's got issues.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Trust me, I got enough on my plate ... I dont want another pack on my back. Always keep in mind that someone with your ... how shall I put it .... editing interests can never expect help from most admins with these kinds of things, they are only there to hurt people like you, not help.

Dont let them post to your talk page, and don't let them provoke you. Take care and have fun. CENSEI (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Pray for me.  :)(Wallamoose (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

I liked your second change to the misallocation of Fed funds part. To the point and straight. I was going to let you know on your talk page, but figured I'd catch up with you later on down the road and let you know.

We'll see if it holds up though, the sources are opinion pieces which is why I went the "caused controversy route".

I think some of the bad writing in the article is because everyone is overly cautious. The article is so contentious that if you put "committed voter fraud" it will 1) be taken out immediately or 2)changed to allegedly had some of its employees investigated for possible engagement in voter fraud.

So I'm trying to be super neutral on there. But anyway. I think we're both tired (I noticed some typos in your recent posts). So I'm going to hit the sack. Thanks for your tips. We'll see what tomorrow brings (today actually).

Stay strong, good night.Bali ultimate (talk) 08:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC) (Wallamoose (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Don't Worry... both sides will be checked... just close your eyes and hope for the best.

RafaelRGarcia has admitted to stalking me (bottom of page) and has refused to stop. The problems with this individual predate the posting of these accurate headers. Because of his activities I feel it's important that anyone viewing my page be made aware of the issues involved and the type of person I'm dealing with.

Since you've taken an interest I hope you'll put a stop to his abusive behavior.

Once again we have an example of a user failing to obey the rules and harassing me. I've given up on bringing it to the attention of Admins as I've been unsucessful in getting the situation resolved. It's been a waste of their time and mine, so I go about my business as best I can while having to deal with this individual who displays serious emotional and mental problems.

You can also check out his post on the ACORN discussion page: Revision as of 21:41, 8 October 2008 and 22:35, 8 October 2008. Had he ever been on that page before stalking me and posting harassing comments? And also his posts on my talk page after I asked him to stop posting there. And his reverts of my good faith edits on Rehnquist. (Do you want details?)

Regarding the Clarence Thomas article, it's not appropriate to maintain a smear job on a Supreme Court Justice (who RafaelRGarcia has repeatedly referred to as a Perv), and I've been patient and worked through the appropriate channels to the best of my ability to address this. If an Admin. wants to resolve the problem that would be great.

A dispute resolution process has begun on the talk page there, and I hope it will be successful. I'm looking forward to working on other projects (as I did when I left that page alone after posting and RfC the last time we had this problem). In the interim nothing has changed so I'm trying again, despite the difficulty in dealing with RafaelRGarcia's stalking, harassing and inappropriate behavior.

I don't have the time to refute every allegation against me, but I think it's pretty clear that this user has serious emotional and mental issues and is taking them out on me. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

As I am not the only person who assists on WQA, you will need to reply on the WQA page itself. BMW(drive)

KO article

Line in question: The show has since gained a significantly larger viewership amid Olbermann's feud with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, and his harsh criticisms of the George W. Bush administration in particular and rightward leaning politics in general.

First phrase is covered in Feud with Bill O'Reilly section, second phrase is covered in Viewpoints section. You can find the references there. Let me know if I can assist further. Switzpaw (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted my discussion of this sentence on the article's discussion page. (Wallamoose (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Re: Barney Frank

Oh thanks, WP:PRESERVE is one of my pet peeves too, a policy too often neglected especially in contentious articles. I even wrote an essay over the summer contending content inclusion shouldn't be a popularity contest, WP:NOONUS, contra another editor's take on the matter, WP:ONUS. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied

FYI - I replied to your question on my talkpage at my talkpage. Thanks! --guyzero | talk 22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Citizenship Award

I hereby award myself a good citizenship award for extraordinary patience in the face of a harassing stalker. Such patience is truly remarkable, and it's unfortunate that administrators have refused to put an end to the madness. (Wallamoose (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

October 2008

Do I need to file a WikiAlert on RafaelRGarcia? His stalking has continued and its been disruptive to other editors.

I've been too busy to check the WikiAlert page for a little while, but I also posed some questions for you and anyone else who wanted to answer.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response.

(Wallamoose (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

I hadn't read it. But I have responded to them now. I don't know what AGF is. What about stalking? He has already been warned about this on this very page.

My concern with your recommended rephrasing of my headings is that Rafael has pursued me around Wikipedia and sought to incite conflict. So I felt it was important for anyone who came to MY talk page to understand what I'm dealing with. I am willing to consider changing the way they are worded, but first his stalking needs to stop. You haven't addressed it, and as my comments on the WikiAlert page indicate, you've been grotesquely unfair.

You have also seemed to suggest that I have used inappropriate lanuage with other editors. And if this is the case I would ask that you cite examples. In fact, I've made an extraordinary effort to work collaboratively on some contentious articles and haven't had any major incidents of which I'm aware. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

I responded to your request that I change some headers.

"My concern with your recommended rephrasing of my headings is that Rafael has pursued me around Wikipedia and sought to incite conflict. So I felt it was important for anyone who came to MY talk page to understand what I'm dealing with. I am willing to consider changing the way they are worded, but first his stalking needs to stop. You haven't addressed it, and as my comments on the WikiAlert page indicate, you've been grotesquely unfair.

You have also seemed to suggest that I have used inappropriate lanuage with other editors. And if this is the case I would ask that you cite examples. In fact, I've made an extraordinary effort to work collaboratively on some contentious articles and haven't had any major incidents of which I'm aware."

Yet I received no response. Then when I was busy working on another project you defaced my talk page and removed a record of my attempts to request suggestions and help in dealing with harassment. Please explain.(Wallamoose (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

ACORN

Sorry to bother you again. I noticed your edit of the following: "In 1994, the group was found to have improperly used a $1.1 million grant from AmeriCorps for political purposes and the grant was terminated.. Acorn says it does not now accept direct government funding and is not tax exempt." Simply deleted it saying it was in the wrong place. That doesn't seem very fair. Unless I'm confused you didn't move it anywhere. So thi issue caused me quite a bit of time searching forwhat happened to the information and trying to figure out where it went. Next time I would ask that in your edit you say you are removing it to the talk page for proper placement, and that you do so. I don't think it's appropriate to just cut stuff you don't like because it's not in the right area. If I'm mistaken I apologize. Thanks (Wallamoose (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

I moved that sentence (slightly reworded) to the lead. Not in the same edit, but within a minute or two of the cut. However, last I looked, another editor took it out altogether. I wouldn't object to the sentence if we can find a good home for it (it has nothing to do with where it was placed at one point); on the other hand, I'm not really wedded to the idea we need it at all either. LotLE×talk 23:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Saying you slightly reworded it is a bit of a stretch don't you think? I have a sense of humor, but I'd appreciate more of an effort to maintain the statement's significance in future "rewordings".  :) I spent quite a while trying to figure out where it went...(Wallamoose (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Used the diff: [1]. Apology accepted. LotLE×talk 00:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops. You're right. Although putting it in the lead it immediately got chopped up and spit out. Party on. (Wallamoose (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

My unresolved requests for assistance to stop harassment

The following was deleted by an Administrator. I won't speculate on why they would take out the record of my attempts to get help.

For the record this individual has now resorted to stalking me around Wikipedia. If anyone can suggest how to get rid of this pest please let me know. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Your edits are, quite rightly, listed in your contribution history, and anyone and everyone is able to "stalk" anyone and everyone else. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a page about this subject. I'd suggest both of you read it to keep this from escalating anymore. Thanks, Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 23:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope the information you've provided puts a stop this behavior. He's also ignored my request to stop posting on this discussion page. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

You've wikistalked me since last month, so you have no right to complain. I just started to check your contributions elsewhere today, and I now see your pattern of edits and how much conflict you're generating. You've been abusive in your language towards me and other editors, so you'd never be successful in getting action leveraged against your opponents without also getting in trouble yourself. I'll stop posting on your talk page when you stop talking about me. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The abuse continues. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

No prob. Once you say not to post on your talk page, you can revert further posts. Other than that, I'd really suggest you guys let it go. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have proceeded to file a WikiAlert regarding this RafaelRGarcia's ongoing stalking. (Wallamoose (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

You can defend yourself. I would avoid fanning the flames too much though. Sometimes, people feed off of making others mad. If you remain civil while defending yourself, either he'll get bored and move on or more people will come to your side. Ya' know? Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 03:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not holding my breath...  :) Thanks as always. I appreciate your guidance. Futile though it seems at the moment... Do you have any comment on a fire with fire approach?  :) (Wallamoose (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

No comment... I asked an admin to look into the wikialert. Cheers! Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)