User talk:Oprahwasontv

Hello, Oprahwasontv. You have new messages at L'Aquatique's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oprah was on tv but now she isn't.

Unblock

Well, I'm sure there's something. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attack

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on this page, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because the article is a page created primarily to disparage its subject or a biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to. (CSD G10).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting the article, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate the article itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply re: gaffe pages

I'm not the one who nominated either for deletion in any capacity. While I realize some news sources may have published such articles, however, Wikipedia strives to have articles that are impartial in tone, which these by definition probably can't be. I respect what you're doing, I'm just trying to explain the stance your articles' detractors probably have taken up. I can really see the issue both ways here, so I'm afraid I have to abstain on this issue. - Vianello (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP and Carly Fiorina

Please take a look at WP:BLP. Carly Fiorina is a living person, and we have a duty to treat the article about her with a reasonable level of common sense: your comment on that article's talk page was not helpful, it was imprecise, and it introduced a whole host of clearly irrelevant and potentially misleading innuendo. She has talked about her and her husband's attempts to have children, and that is cited in the article. I'm not sure that it's incredibly important to the article, but the manner in which you brought it up was really over the top, and a WP:BLP violation in and of itself. user:j (aka justen) 05:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notice of Obama article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts along with independently disruptive editing in a sensitive area. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough. You match Dereks1x's MO quite closely, as numerous admins have attested. Please don't cite the checkuser results again; I'm familiar with them as well as with your ability to avoid leaving a trail of technical evidence with most of your socks. You're being independently disruptive in any case on articles surrounding the 2008 Presidential Election in the US, which are already contentious enough. I will leave a note for Master of Puppets (talk · contribs), but given that a number of admins have remarked on your disruption and marked similarities with Dereks1x, I'm not sure it will change things. MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 27 August 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

MastCell is a known friend of POV pusher and Obama supporter Tvoz. I am being blocked so that they can win an Obama edit war and own the article. The RFCU showed that I am innocent. My edits are NOT disruptive but are an attempt to fix the POV positive angle of both the "cultural and political image of Obama" and "McCain" sections. What is an image? It's an opinion. This is not appropriate so I added one additional image to both articles with impeccable sources like CNN, Associated Press, and Time Magazine. They were worded nicely and very encyclopedically. Even administrator L'Aquatique remarked "Thanks for remaining calm and rational through all this. It was definitely a judgement call, and I am willing to admit I might have made the wrong decision. I'm glad that we are able to work through it and find a solution that everyone is happy with. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC) " See his talk page. Far from MastCell's claim of other admins claiming disruption, he is in close contact with overtly pro-Obama people so that is abusing Wikipedia. In contrast, and in contrast to Derekx1s, I am pro-Wikipedia and not for or against either McCain or Obama (Derek was anti-Obama and pro-McCain). Please be reasonable and unblock. The checkuser proves that I am innocent and my edits are entirely different from Derekx1s. Even MastCell agrees that the checkuser clears me; if I were really Derek, I'd edit everyday/I only started again because of an AN post that I saw recently

For your information, the impeccably sourced edit that I put in the "Cultural and Political Image of Obama" was that many major new sources say that he is considered inexperienced in foreign policy and his Vice Presidential choice addresses that issue somewhat. For Mcain, his image (noted on major news sources) is that some say he is too liberal and some say he is too conservative. These are very reasonable edits except to campaign supporters who want only positive information for their Wikipedia campaign tool

Decline reason:

Don't worry too much about the accusation of sockpuppetry; notice that your block is for disruptive editing under your own name as well, so you can rest assured that you are being blocked for edits you have made. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:02, 27 August 2008 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Please identify the disruptive edit. Another admin said it was not disruptive. If you want advice, contact Master of Puppets and L'Aquatique. MastCell is a known friend of Tvoz, who is an ardent supporter of Obama. In contrast, I am neutral and for wikipedia. Also note that FisherQueen has said "don't worry too much about the accusation of sockpuppetry; blocked for edits you have made" so that only issue that should be discussed are the edits. You cannot use diffs to show disruption because there is no disruption. Please don't be so nasty.

For your information, the impeccably sourced edit (Associated Press, CNN, Time Magazine, etc) that I put in the "Cultural and Political Image of Obama" was that many major new sources say that he is considered inexperienced in foreign policy and his Vice Presidential choice addresses that issue somewhat. For Mcain, his image (noted on major news sources) is that some say he is too liberal and some say he is too conservative. These are very reasonable edits except to campaign supporters who want only positive information for their Wikipedia campaign tool"  PLEASE SEE DIFFS below of the so-called disruptive edits which aren't disruptive at all but rather good edits

Decline reason:

The discussion on this page and the two AN discussions linked by MastCell indicate to me that the indefinite block was correct. This editor's changes to Barack Obama and John McCain were clearly inappropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2008 (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.

Clarification: I have not cleared this user of sockpuppetry. Indeed, I think it is very likely that this user is a sockpuppet. I merely let this user know that she would be blocked even if she were not a sockpuppet, as stated in the block log. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say this very clearly. Above, you misrepresented me. If you remove my clarification again, I will protect this page from further edits. You may not misrepresent me in order to defend yourself. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my talk page. Please, FisherQueen don't be heavy handed. I have made edits to quote you directly instead of making a summary. FisherQueen, be reasonable. My Obama and McCain edits are well researched and hold up to the standard. I discussed it unlike the reverters. I also did not re-revert. So who is being unreasonable, not me. Oprahwasontv (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Context: see this diff, in which the user undoes his attempt to claim that I have declared him innocent. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background: AN thread, also an old AN thread from 2007 providing pretty clear evidence that this is a Dereks1x/Archtransit sock. Not sure how this slipped through the cracks and became a recurrent problem. MastCell ^Talk 21:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is only a problem because of your conclusion that "everyone I hate who edits Obama is Derek" This is a flawed conclusion. Furthermore, I am not anti-Obama and pro-McCain as you can see in my edits. Please be reasonable MastCell. Oprahwasontv (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are reasonable, MastCell, you will unblock on the condition that I will discuss it with several admin. Instead, you attack me with false accusations of being a Derek sock. It's too easy to say that if the RFCU says you are a sock, you are. If it doesn't I say you are. Oprahwasontv (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of disruptive edits
http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=234625530

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=prev&oldid=234625531

Hardly disruptive as the section is called "Cultural and Political Images of Obama (or McCain)." The section title doesn't say "Favorable Cultural and Political Images of McCain (or Obama).