User talk:1houstonian

Steve Stockman article

Dear editor: I notice that you have made several edits to the article on Steve Stockman that appear to indicate a lack of understanding of the Wikipedia policy on neutrality. The Houston Chronicle is a SOURCE. It is a major newspaper, and it is considered a reliable source. A newspaper, such as the Chronicle, is not required to be "neutral" or unbiased under the Wikipedia rules. Neutral Point of View (NPOV) in Wikipedia refers to how Wikipedia presents the information. Deleting material because you feel the newspaper is not neutral or is presenting on half the story, etc., is not your role as a Wikipedia editor -- even if your feeling is correct. Please review the policy. Famspear (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rule (see the page on Neutral Point of View):

"It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias.....

Yours, Famspear (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective....

It is probably not going to be appropriate for you as a Wikipedia editor to delete material from the Houston Chronicle merely because the reporting is biased. And it is probably not your place as a Wikipedia editor to decide whether the Chronicle has gotten the story right.

Also, some of material you have added to the article appears to approach cheerleading or soapboxing on behalf of, or in favor of, Steve Stockman. Please be careful about that. Famspear (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Steve Stockman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

and Stockman has challenged Biden unlock the economic potential of the country by lifting the EPA[[http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stockman-challenges-biden-to-lift-epa-
job growth and encourages employment, Congressman Stockman has been pushing to keep power costs low[[http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/Letters/121913_

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Rinkle gorge. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Steve Stockman, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Rinkle gorge (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Steve Stockman. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 1houstonian. You have new messages at Rinkle gorge's talk page.
Message added 23:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Rinkle gorge (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC) This is the link to the libel lawsuit filed in Houston against Senator Cornyns Super Pac http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/fort_bend/opinion/stockman-sues-cornyn-super-pac-for-false-statements/article_362af0fe-70b1-53cd-90f6-e90d4d3bbb6d.html. I am sending this to you as you had asked me to show you a proof earlier http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/fort_bend/opinion/stockman-sues-cornyn-super-pac-for-false-statements/article_362af0fe-70b1-53cd-90f6-e90d4d3bbb6d.html 1houstonian (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested I put in a citation to the Dallas Morning News about the lawsuit. The previous source was WND, which isn't reliable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laylah and team having heyday converting Congressman Steve Stockman's page into a campaign page for Senator John Cornyn by removing Congressman Steve Stockman's sponsored resolutions, policy positions, interviews, his work towards creation of jobs and replacing them with out of malicious context quips to create a 1 sided campaign page for Congressman Stockman's opponent, and this is all being done while several Congressman Steve Stockmen's supporters from many parts in Texas been locked out to edit this page by Wikepedia1houstonian (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Steve Stockman, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. GabrielF (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you on WP:BLPN

Here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Steve_Stockman. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:LEGAL and then don't do it anymore, ok?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting and talk

And also read WP:3RR, which you're on the verge of violating.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Elected officials positions, bills he has sponsored are neither an advertisement or cheerleading. Please stop vandalizing Congressman Stockmans page. His positions are also not liked by many people. Please stop removing his positions and bills from the page. There are many voters who will not like his press releases or bills or support to open up drilling, get more building permits for Petrochemical plants etc.[reply]

Sure. Talk about it on the talk page of the article, so that all interested editors can participate.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

writing on a talk page

Hey, if you write your new comments at the bottom instead of interspersing them into other comments people will be able to understand your points much better. Also, if you end each comment with ~~~~ it'll sign your name to them, which will also help keep the conversation clear. The way you're doing it now makes it almost impossible to have a conversation.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Steve Stockman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Hey, please undo your own revert, since it was your 4th. That's really not OK. Read the rules and talk before reverting, as we've been asking you to do. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can some editors block Laylah and GabrielF for overriding more than 10 people who are trying to stop them from vandalizing Steve Stockman page 1houstonian

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:1houstonian reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: ). Thank you. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring at Steve Stockman

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Steve Stockman. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI mention

ANI discussion mentioning you is here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

1houstonian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request I be unblocked as per Wikepedia’s policy of neutrality as Wikepedia is a non-profit organization. Congressman Steve Stockman’s page cannot be converted into Senator John Cornyn’s election commercial by allowing biased editors to take out all the works Stockman has done during his term and describing his term with a few quips that the editors chose to use to maliciously describe his record. The biased Editors have removed all the records of Stockman’s working to create jobs including his interviews http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/3dcf1362#/3dcf1362/28 and many others. On Senator John Cornyn’s page you have not allowed anything negative and have removed any links to his actual record have also allowed references to his ==Political Positions== like a campaign commercial. If you want to be neutral you should allow ==Political Positions== for Congresman Steve Stockman. Also either allow negative quips on Senator John Cornyn to describe his record or remove the negative quips on Congressman Steve Stockman by biased editors. I again respectfully request you to unblock me and allow neutrality

Accept reason:

Block has already expired. "bias" or not, you may never edit war; period. You agreed to follow Wikipedia's rules, so please follow them or you will find yourself blocked again D P 10:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1houstonian— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, 1houstonian. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2014 (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).

1houstonian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am requesting unblock because I am not using sock puppet which is the reason you have given for blocking me 1houstonian (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See the unblock request below. Nothing useful is achieved by having duplicate unblock requests open at the same time. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2014 (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.

Blocked

I've blocked this account for one week as it appears to have engaged in sockpuppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1houstonian. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC) How many people are you going to block to allow free hand to vandalism of Steve Stockman page? 1houstonian I request to be unblocked. Firstly I do am not that tech savy to operate a sock puppet you have the ability to check the IP's on the people from different regions of the country try to stop vandalism on Congressman Steve Stockmans page. Accusing me of sockpuppetry is not going to solve the vandalism being done by GabrielF, Laylah and the team on Steve Stockmans page 1 houstonian[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).

1houstonian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i am not engaging is socketpuppetry and additionally those who have been shut out were trying to post objective information about Rep. Stockman to cite his bills, resolutions, etc., while those editors that have NOT been shut out are writing subjective commentary, smears, and even outright untruths, one of which libel with a lawsuit filed for violating the law

Decline reason:

Alright. How many different ways can I find to decline this one? First, I think you were sockpuppeting. Second, above and beyond (or should that be, below and in front of?) that, you were edit warring and generally being tendentious. Third, making legal threats in an unblock request is a really bad idea. If you don't retract it, we'll probably have to cut off your talk page access. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2014 (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).

1houstonian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not engaged in sock puppetry, secondly this is not the forum to make legal threats so I would not make them on this forum, thirdly you have blocked all of us who were writing objectively factual and balanced with documented actual bills and interviews and editors that have NOT been shut out blocked are writing subjective commentary, smears, and even outright untruths, one of which libel with a lawsuit filed for violating the law 1houstonian (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I echo Daniel Case's statement above, and find it worrying that you're still throwing around veiled legal threats/copy-pasting your previous edit despite the aforementioned statement. As a result, I have extended your block indefinitely. Please carefully consider your next edit to the page - you are very close to losing talk page access. m.o.p 17:04, 6 February 2014 (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).

1houstonian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request unblock because I am not using sockpuppet as alleged in the block 1houstonian (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It makes little difference whether you have been using a sockpuppet, a meatpuppet, or neither, since it is clear that almost your only purpose in editing is to use Wikipedia as a free advertising medium to promote a politician. That alone is sufficient to justify the block, and when we add edit warring, a battleground approach to other editors and (whatever you say to the contrary) thinly veiled legal threats, there is far more than enough justification. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2014 (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.

I thank you for denying my unblock request. I was always been under the impression that Wikepedia promotes neutrality and objectivity and anyone can go and edit. If your editors cannot tolerate objectivity and neutrality on a living person's bio you should just delete the living person bio page instead of filling it with subjective malicious out of context smears to be used as free advertising for his political opponent. While others who are blocked by you may not know but I have been using Wikepedia enough to know there are other ways I can come back and edit but I am repeatedly trying your process to show where the objectivity and neutrality end. You have locked this page so only your biased editors can edit to create a campaign ad for his political opponent and as per one of your own biased editor Laylah he likes it this way and has written in his comment "let the good times roll" 1houstonian (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have revoked talk page access due to this editor's threat of committing further sockpuppetry. m.o.p 06:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]