Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keep Going Back and User talk:Wallamoose: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:31, 11 October 2008

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)[reply]

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

re:Bush doctrine

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)[reply]

Page protection

I have fully protected Clarence Thomas for three days so this edit war would be stopped. Please discuss the potential changes on the article's talk page. Useight (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 (without stating this fact) due to their credibility problems. I have also explained that it's inappropraite to talk extensively about allegations made by persons never called to testify without any discussion of the witnesses who actually testified on Clarence Thomas's behalf and without providing any information about the testimony and evidence that refutes the claims of his accusers. I am new to Wikipedia, but it's troubling that there isn't an effective way to remove false information and prevent biased users from promoting their personal agenda in articles.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The "truth" - so-called "factual inaccuracies" and "belief" - do not matter in Wikipedia, only verifiability. Please refrain from removing well-documented historical matters from biographies. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(REPOSTED FROM MY RESPONSE ON BEARIAN'S PAGE)

Bearian, I received your message, but I must ask that you provide an example where I posted false information or removed accurate information. In fact, user 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 attempted through several editors to get me banned. And 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))[reply]

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)[reply]

Warning

Please do not hit the "minor edit" button except for truly minor edits - such as clean up of spelling errors, or disambiguating links. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I did so. It was certainly not intentional.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Everyone should get several warnings. I would not, at this time, support a block, without more. Follow the most important rules, don't panic, play nice, and you will get along fine here. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles B. Rangel

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

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[reply]

reply

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)[reply]

Warning and advice

I noted your needless comments here. Please keep on topic and refrain from irrelevant discussions. 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)[reply]

Oops. You're absolutely right. Somehow I thought it was a review of the Thomas article (which came as a shock given the state of that article). I don't remember where I linked to it from, but obviously I was mighty confused! I have removed my comments. Regarding the Clarence Thomas article I think the article speaks for itself and in terms of POV, balance, and verifiability. This has been noted by many editors. For example there are 10 or 15 edits attempting to diminish Clarence Thomas and his career all with citations to a single source. On the other hand, since this is at least a working citation, I guess I should be thankful? Wikipedia may not be based on truth, but when the official court records shows someone didn't testify, it seems strange to talk about them as a witness and their testifying.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The issue about testifying was taken care of days ago. It's up to you to add sources, not try to delete the other side's. All my sources are reliable.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Greenhouse

I've reverted your changes to Linda Greenhouse as POV, as an apparent misrepresentation of the source. It was very obvious that the source, holistically, is just a factual statement that Greenhouse doesn't hide her personal bias and that this is not the norm, but did not give any impression that she has been criticised for it. But by using terms unlike any used in the source (widely criticised) your edit was clearly inferring something about the source it never stated. Also, giving only (essentially) partial cut-outs of the source don't provide the entire context in any one place, and also gives a negative impression. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, again. Read the source carefully, and you'll see there is no real criticism; merely the statement that she does not hide her bias, and that this has not been an issue. This dull factual report does not need to form 10% of her article, and it does not need to be broken up into pieces to give false context. You'll actually notice the source was already in the article. It is now two sentences that ocmpletely summarizes the source, which is all that is needed. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Don't leave comments on user pages.

You recently left a comment on my user page about the Joe Biden article. Just so you know, you should never edit someone's user page without their permission (it can be considered vandalism). If you wish to leave a comment, leave it on their talk page. But really, in cases like this involving disagreements over content, the place to discuss it is on the talk page of the article in question Talk:Joe Biden Thank you. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. I need to be more careful. Sorry about that. I thought I was on the talk page. I apologize. And I will make sure to carry on any discussions with you on content on the article's talk page in the future. As it was an edit issue that was just between us I was just trying to resolve it that way. But no worries, and again I'm sorry and I'll try to be careful. I get confused navigating back and forth between all these pages. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Rehnquist

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on William Rehnquist. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Lihaas (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Axelrod ASK Section

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

Clarence Thomas

You are citing documents that do not say what you say they say. That is sloppy. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation is false. And you need to be specific. It's ironic that someone who has repeatedly made up citations and tried to put false statements in an article would make such accusations. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

That's not ironic, and it's not true. You can't cite that html page as the citation. You have to find the pdf for each statement. And you can't tell readers what actions "suggest." That is not NPOV.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pdfs are categorized alphabetically on the page I listed. If you'd like you are welcome to add the page number if you think that's helpful. I'm not sure how many people have a copy of 500 page document on hand. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have responded on Talk:Clarence Thomas. Useight (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you had to go through Rafael to make edits and he doesn't have to go through you. But you need to both stop reverting each other. If he wants page number in the citations, he can add them himself. Upon closer inspection, I do see that some of the information in your original addition is not included in the article. Can you post to my talk page the exact information you want to add and a link to the citations? I am also going to watchlist the page. Useight (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The hopeless effort to address RafaelGarcia's opinion based editing

Reposted from RafaelGarcia's userpage:

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))[reply]

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

The first citation gives page numbers yet you continue to remove it. The rest are easily available by using the alphabetical listing on the well organized page I've refed. If you don't like my citations you may add that Citation request tag, but your abusive deletion is unwarranted and you've been reported. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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 I included. It's not biased at all and does little to balance the grotesque abundance of partisan edits RafaelGarcia has put into the article despite repeated pleadings from multiple editors to cut this section down and balance it. In fact I left the article alone for a long time because I was sick of the edit war, but it's time that these issues are addressed and that RafaelGarcia's abuse be stopped. He removed my ref tags (00:46) removed my text completely (00:48) and removed the unbalanced tag (1:02) without consulting anyone else or explaining why on the talk page. After my complaints to administrators he has now put that he decided the section was balanced since he couldn't get rid of the single paragraph I had added. He needs to be banned and his abuse stopped. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Wallamoose is lying, and more detailed discussion is available about this in the proper Clarence Thomas talk page. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm including this 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. (Wallamoose (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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. (Wallamoose (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You haven't added much to the actual article, but you've added tons to the Talk page, and removed it later when you realized you were dead wrong. I haven't added any "new witnesses;" I prevented your attempt to revise history and I expanded on the stories of the women who accused Thomas. Their stories are in the confirmation process record and should not be removed. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

Calm Down

Calm down, they are going to bring down the thunder on you, and with the way that far too many admins have a difficult time curbing their biases over subjects like this its a gonna stick. Kill them with kindness and use the notice boards to nail their asses to the walls when they step over the line. You are definitely outnumbered here, and need to play it a bit cooler if you want to stay.

And definitely fight every single BS allegation, if left undefended it will be used against you later. CENSEI (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Acorn and "causing controversy"

The salient point of the citation (and the one actually in the citation) is not that acorn "caused controversy" by "misallocating funds" (sounds bad, but vague) but that they were found to have done something wrong. So it's better to just simply say what they were found to have done wrong. Like this: "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.[50][51]." If there are other relevant, citable instances of them having been found to have done something like that, put it in. If it's an opinion piece alleging that there were other such cases without specificity, you might be able to reference the authors claim, but make it clear that's what is happening.

The however is a mild violation of NPOV (words like "however" are oddly editorial, and should almost never be used in an encyclopedic article. Most of the time when you see words like "however," "furthermore," or even "but" in an encyclopedic article, you should take them as signals that a sentence should be ended, because they often connect two declarative statments together in a confusing way. For instance: "Bali disagreed with walla, however Bali said he no longer disagrees with Walla." Compared to: "Bali disagreed with Walla in 1994. Bali says he no longer disagrees with Walla." The second is clearer and better writing. As for "stated;" "said" or "says" these are always preferable. So, new sentence: "Acorn says it does not now accept direct government funding and is not tax exempt.[52] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 08:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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".(Wallamoose (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If you think the facts as contained in those opinion pieces might not be facts, then it's only good for. "Some commentators alleged x, y and z." If you think the facts as represented (more research might be required) are real facts, then just state the facts.

As to "caused contoversy: Better to say "X's involement in Y proved controversial when source A said something about it being controversial." You might need to flesh out further (if this is really notable and worthwile of inclusion) with: "Source C said it sucked. Source D said it was great." (thus demonstrating the controversy, assuming it's not just two nut-jobs dissagreeing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 08:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. (Wallamoose (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Specificity is always the key. Don't ever say "committed voter fraud" when you can say "was convicted of voter fraud in the state of x." (after all, "committed voter fraud" begs all kinds of questions like, sez who?) If you can't say something declarative and non-controversial, then maybe it shouldn't be said in an encyclopedia. Don't worry about being overly cautious -- just focus on the most simple factual statement available to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 08:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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). (Wallamoose (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

Might I suggest...

You have 2 section headings that are very inflammatory about another editor. The longer they remain there in their defamatory way, I expect you and that editor to continue to have issues.

Please be advised that a Wikiquette Complaint has been filed against you. It is available to be seen/commented upon here. Personally, I look forward to an explanation of the quotes that have been posted as having come from you as they are, indeed, extremely uncivil. BMW(drive) 21:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RafaelRGarcia has admitted to stalking me (see above) 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.

This WikiAlert is just one of many many many examples.

Please note

"If you file a WikiAlert, you have to:

Notify the reported user(s). Place a polite short statement on the user(s) talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved, to notify them that you have filed an alert here."

So 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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Replied

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

October 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please refrain from personal attacks BMW(drive) 23:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to me if you could cite the specific instance to which you are referring.

Also, it was my understanding that both of our actions would be considered. I have tried to be exceptionally patient throughout this process and I think it's clear that I am putting up with a lot.

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))[reply]

If you have read my last entry on the Wikiquette complaint, you will note that the complainant has been warned about AGF. Your comments in the Wikiquette entry alone could have resulted in further action, so please, let's not push it. Be civil towards other editors which involves acceptance, and not insults. BMW(drive) 23:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I would ask you to rephrase the headings about a specific editor on your talk page to make them less offensive/uncivil - I should not have to do it for you :-) BMW(drive) 23:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

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.^[1]^[2]. Acorn says it does not now accept direct government funding and is not tax exempt.^[3]" 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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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

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))[reply]

^ "Grapes of Rathke". The Wall Street Journal. November 8, 2006. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ http://www.washtimes.com/news/2006/jan/03/20060103-093213-4084r/
^ http://acorn.org/index.php?id=12342

[1] "Grapes of Rathke". The Wall Street Journal. November 8, 2006. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[2] ttp://www.washtimes.com/news/2006/jan/03/20060103-093213-4084r/

[3] ttp://acorn.org/index.php?id=12342

[1]

[2]

[3]