User talk:Woonhocho

Jason M. Dahl

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reshma Saujani September 2010

Please stop adding material from non-reliable sources. I have removed that material for good reason. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swing State Project is not a reliable source and it has no place in this project. Not to mention, the wording you use sounds biased. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, that's not what the NY Mag source you added says. And SSP is NOT an acceptable source, so stop adding it. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's a lawyer who has worked on other things besides hedge funds. If you want to source that she worked on hedge funds in the body, that's fine. But putting it up front, while saying she worked on Wall Street, is skewing the truth at best. Also, it's better grammar to say she is a practicing Hindu as opposed to what you put. Finally, NY Mag and NY Times are both reliable sources. The fact is that your edit was not represented in the NY Mag piece you cited, and the wording of the edit was biased anyway. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers, and I agree your editings. Her hedge fund working record was in the same article that you mention about representing asylums. I will find more reliable information than Swing State Project about Reshma campaign money origins.--Woonhocho (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kármán line, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cecilia Chang for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Cecilia Chang, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecilia Chang until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecilia Chang. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Ray^Talk 04:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I will debate on the contribution.Woonhocho (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE:DREAM Act

You will need to find verifiable sources to support claims such as this one. It cannot stand as an essay-style personal opinion. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may check the US Homeland Security document. The situation of Green Card waiting period is the fact among the legal immigrants. Woonhocho (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. You need to give a source that makes the claim of "unfairness" with respect to the DREAM act. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will put the resoure. Thanks.Woonhocho (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to DREAM Act has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Piast93 (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm telling you, you're gonna get yourself into trouble if you keep going like this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you watch out your writing. The docuement should be neutral not supporting.Woonhocho (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to DREAM Act. Piast93 (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is response of your bias Please, keep the neutral point of yourself. The fail is expected by all media as well. Woonhocho (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For crap's sake, you can't do that! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said you needed to watch out your writing. If you keep writing the document representing one side, I will ask to remove sections to Wikipdia editors.

Indeed. Please review our policies, particularly WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:3RR. You can not simply edit war with others to preserve your preferred version of an article, especially when your preferred version has significant flaws with respect to point of view and lack of sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a political battleground. ElKevbo (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already reported you. Are you gonna keep going, or are you willing to listen? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Woonhocho (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the source of congress voting record and DREAM Act failure expection is from News[1] I will input origins of the others one by one. When you read the DREAM Act aticle, it does not say anything of the critical loof holes of the bill. That is why around half of congress men/women and senators against it. Also when you see the voting record, all yes Republican are Lationo origin or who will be out in 2011 by losing the last elections. The bill clearly rewards the crimminal behavior of the violoation of the immigration law.

To the administrator, I hope you have time review my contribution history, before making a decision. As you see my editing record on Reshma Saujani article, some writers choose specific words to do the sake of their interests. After the event close (election of her case), they normally abandon their tracks (contribution). I have been neutral to show every aspect, sometimes hidden or require more intelligent process to verify. I know your organization is in trouble by Wikileak classified document case. I am on your side because I believe everyone has right to see the truth. Woonhocho (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Although the source of about 1/20th of your addition is correct, it's the massively WP:NPOV/WP:SOAP and WP:TRUTH violations that have you in trouble. That added to edit-warring and failure to follow WP:CONSENSUS editing means that I am surprised this block not much longer, and did not come earlier. This is not your place to spew forth personal opinion on actual news items. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hmm... too late, I see. Take the next 24 hours to review our policies (see above). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it. I can guarantee you your unblock request will be declined. You were blocked for adding your long, unsourced rants about "Nightmare", "Unfairness", "Controversial" and all that... No one gives a crap about that one source you now dig up. Find sources that reflect your word-choice and assertions, then come back. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're back. Please discuss vast changes to the article on the corresponding talk page before making them. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]