User talk:Presidentmalia

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Presidentmalia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malia Obama

If you choose to take it to deletion review, you need to prepared first. The people most interested in keeping the article deleted are people who are hanging around places like AfD and DrV, the general readership and editorship of Wikipedia doesn't automatically run to those places. So you'll need to prepare a cogent and convincing explanation for why Malia Obama merits a separate article. Feel free to ask me questions here, my talk page, via my user page email, if you have em.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the 2nd paragraph of deletion review. I do not consider the politics of Wikipedia, such as knowing where the deletionist hang around. Paid political activists, who act exactly like Tvoz (does not mean that Tvoz is paid) are paid to follow me around so anywhere I go, they will go so that is not a consideration.

The 2nd paragraph says deletion review is for deleted pages. No where does it say it is for articles where biased political activists who try to keep a redirect and purposely page protect the redirect is suited for deletion review. This is why I asked for arbitration, arbitration may be best suited to bring those paid political activist type behavior to justice and try to keep Wikipedia free of them. I came to Wikipedia to read about Malia and am mad that there is no article but plenty of articles about sexual positions. Is anal rimming notable? And Bo the Obama dog notable? Bo, not Malia? Presidentmalia (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to consider the "politics" of any organization, its hard to be effective working with them. There are partisans on both sides of all issues here on wikipedia, but its not necessarily anti-Obama to oppose a page on Malia--many people hold that view from a protectionist stance, i.e., they believe it protects Malia not to have an article--some people felt the same about the Bush twins 5 years ago. Here, we have a deleted page. Tvoz and others will be able to continually assert that "consensus" has found that she does merit a page, unless a venue is found to either confirm or disprove that "consensus." DrV would be an option for that. If that isn't successful, I suppose you could escalate it. But beware, your lack of experience in Wikipedia is going to make your task almost impossible. I say this as a realist, not an opponent, who believes that both anal rimming and Malia are notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you said that DRV is great for getting articles deleted or to keep deleted so if you consider politics, DRV is the wrong place to go. But I read the 2nd paragraph of DRV and that is to try to reinstate an article of "What the Queen ate for lunch on 24 July 1985" not political activism to keep Malia from having an article but saying it is ok for Bo the dog to have an article. Presidentmalia (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not going to go well. You need a wiki-attorney, if we had such things!!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are pure. That is for Wikipedia to have an article which is a reasonable subject. Malia is reasonable. I don't know the tricky lawyer tricks. That is why on AGK's page, I authorize anyone to join me and take over the case. Of course, they will be called a sock and the lawyer trick is to win by calling them a sock. Presidentmalia (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to look at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria and WP:NOTINHERITED to give you an idea of the kind of issues that may be raised at DRV.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← And while you're at it, try WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I hope any admins considering unblocking will check the edit history of this likely sock and read his edits and not reinstate an editor whose sole purpose seems to be to disrupt and attack. Thank you. Tvoz/talk 05:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tip

Because you are in a dispute, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and Wikipedia:No angry mastodons are good reads, and also, if you have a question, my talkpage is always open.

In a nutshell, what you want to do, is really ponder and gather resources and diffs for your argument. Then formulate answers to the people's concerns and questions before you post a response. Pointers for debates are keep cool and assume that the other editors are doing what is best for the ecylopedia.

Thanks,

--Talktome^(Intelati) 23:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. you can always ask a question on my talkpage. :)

Please choose a more neutral username; this one is just plain creepy, when combined with your single purpose account edits

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated.

If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 00:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do create a new account, try to start interacting with your fellow editors in a manner that isn't rude and disrespectful[1][2]. If you fail to do this, I'll block you. Don't say you haven't been warned. AGK 23:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]