User talk:Ingrid4hubby

Welcome!

Hello, Ingrid4hubby, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Deb (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article on Racism. It is not clear what you are trying to do that is different. The article you submitted was entitled Racism in Wikipedia but it did not cover that topic. Deb (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you haven't completely read the title to my article. The title is: 'Racism In Wikipedia'. The article is not about racism in general. It is about racism and discrimination that wiki users have experienced. For example, a user adds info on an article to correct the author of that article which is based on race, ethnicity, etc. But, the author deletes that info and doesn't provide any reasons why he committed such an action. However, the user feels his info was correct. But because of the bias and prejudice of the author, the user has no recourse and no voice in the matter. The user therefore feels bias and prejudiced that info about his race/ethnicity was not reflected on the article. There are many upon many users who have felt discriminated and I am now in contact with many who will provide sources to my article. I will be completing the article and publishing it to wiki soon.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I read the title, hence my comment above. You did not write about that subject. You just wrote about racism. Be very careful if you intend to make any accusation of racism against a living person, whether or not they are a wikipedian. If you do not include independent published sources, any such material will be deleted. Deb (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. There is no such word as "prejudism". Deb (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand what you're saying. And believe me, I will not refer directly to a living person of racism or discriminatory statements that that person may or may not have made, even if they're a wiki person. But, I will refer indirectly without mentioning names (i.e., "in article so-and-so, such and such comment was made...." etc.). Again, no names will be mentioned at all.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Castles in Europe

I have nominated Castles in Europe, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castles in Europe. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Apbiologyrocks (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article, 'Castles', may exist, but the author is stubborn about allowing users to add accurate info and is bias against certain regions of Europe. The author seems discriminatory against certain info. I find this not in keeping with wiki's universal policy. I had no choice but to create a modified article called, 'Eurpoean Castles' with accurate info. For example, a particular castle in Spain is called, 'King Charles V's Castle'. The old and unused name of the castle is, 'Alcázar of Segovia'. Everyone in Spain has called this castle by, 'King Charles V's Castle', for 500 years, not 'Alcazar of Segovia'. The author refuses to accept this fact, though I provided solid sources supporting this historic truth. The author is biased against Spanish historical inferences for reasons I have yet to understand. He is not flexible. If he can remove his biasness, and allow me to add my info backed by sources, then I will not create a new article. However, if the author continues to be stubborn and discriminatory about the matter, I will have no choice but to create an accurate version. Fair is fair.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single author for an article. If you disagree with the presentation of material in the article, discuss the matter at its talk page—which, based on your edit history, you have made no effort to do. —C.Fred (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castles in Europe is now closed. If you disagree with the closing, contact the closing administrator directly at his talk page.C.Fred (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean there's no single author for the article? In the past, my info has been deleted by ONE person who claimed to be the author of the article. This doesn't make sense. I think you mistake author for administrator. I believe this means one and the same. Also, I did make much effort in discussing with the administrator or author about this matter but I used another name. He just doesn't listen at all. He's stubborn and discriminatory. Can you contact him about this so that he doesn't thwart my efforts in contributing to that article? I'd appreciate it alot.

Also, when you say I should contact the author or administrator of the article, do you mean that I should address these issues on the 'discussion' link found on the article?

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

Don't forget to log in using your user account when you contribute to articles or talk pages. If you don't do this, some people may think that you are trying to conceal your identity. Deb (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring on the castle article and making personal attacks such as this and this. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Nev1 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's about time that CJ DUB got blocked. But he should be blocked for a longer period of time, in my opinion. A 24 hour block on this anti-european, sexless american isn't enough. He keeps coming back, like he's obsessed with me. The guy is really weird! But, at least he's been blocked. Maybe this will teach him respect. No wonder people hate americans.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your information: the block affected only you. Please exercise more restraint. Thank you. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Originally posted on talk:Castle, but cross-posted here to make sure Ingrid4hubby doesn't miss the message) Ingrud4hubby, CJ DUB has never been blocked, just take a look at the block log. You on the other hand have been blocked for making personal attacks (check your block log). If you continue to be abusive, you will be blocked for longer than 24 hours. Consider this your final warning on the matter. Nev1 (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. I was never blocked since I have always been able to edit articles with no problem. I think you mean CJ DUB. And, Seb, why does CJ DUB keep bothering me and others? I seriously don't understand why he's angry at people just because they don't agree with him, his american culture, or his politics. I would never waste my time harassing others like he's doing, unless I had alot of time on my hands. I'm going on vacation soon, so hopefully when I return, he will have cooled off. Nobody here needs to be disrespected.

And, no disrespect to you or your american way of life, but I notice that americans on wiki think they should be right about everything. That's not right. There are other voices who contribute to wiki too and should be able to correct an article without reprimand, disrespect, or having their material (even with reliable sources) suddenly deleted, just because their info deviates from the american point of view on wiki. And then when people provide the info and sources, they get laughed at and harassed about it. That's not right. This behavior motivates others to not look at americans in a good light. I wish people in general were in control of wiki. Sadly, it seems as though the american voice is the only voice that controls and matters on wiki. Anyway, that's my two cents for what it's worth.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks and disruptive editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. TN X Man 16:37, 29 August 2009 (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).

Ingrid4hubby (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The user, CJ DUB, keeps harassing me and others. I've tried to have him stop this, but he continues unabated. I urge that you lift this block because he consistently bothers me all the time and I think it's unfair that you block me but don't reprimand him.

Decline reason:

This request does not address the reason for your block. You are not blocked for the actions of any user but yourself. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:46, 29 August 2009 (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).

Ingrid4hubby (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

That makes no sense. How can I be blocked for my own reasons? The user, Nev1, called me ignorant. Then, the user, CJ DUB says I should be in a sock farm. If I were to say that to him, I'd be banned anyway. So, how else can I defend myself against people who insult me? I don't take BS from people. If someone offends me I in turn will have to defend myself. I can't believe that user Nev1 calls me ignorant and you don't reprimand him. That makes no sense.

Then, when I provide 4 GOOD references about a certain castle in europe, it gets deleted. Then, when I question why it got deleted, I get blocked on top of being insulted by the above users. Why do you allow this to happen? Seriously, I want to know.

This is what Nev1 said:

"Please read it and make sure you understand what it says before you come here proudly displaying your ignorance."

CJ DUB said:

"why don't you go someplace else."

"Stop wasting other user's time with your endless accounts and ingorant, bigoted prattle."

"This user has a sockfarm."

Decline reason:

Sorry, but you've been abusing multiple accounts. For example, these are all you:

So, no. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:08, 10 September 2009 (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.

What kind of editing do you plan to do if unblocked? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:50, 10 September 2009 (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).

Ingrid4hubby (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My use of these other usernames IS NOT the point. The point to my being bocked is that these people offended me FIRST. Then, when I retaliate, I get banned. This is why I used other usernames, because everytime I try to defend myself from their personal attacks, I get banned. So, I'd have to create a new username to get back into wiki. But again, THAT"S NOT THE POINT. Seriously, why can't you see that? I honestly think that most editors in wiki ARE AMERICAN BIGOTS and have an elitist mentality. And anyone who counters the "elite" gets banned. This is an elitist attitude that is counter the spirit of wiki. How would you feel if someone personally attacked you, and everytime you defended yourself, you get banned; but the offenders never get reprimanded? How would you feel? If you agree with this action, then it's clear you're a coward. If you understand my point, then, I ask you do something about it. Step into my shoes. You don't have to be a coward puppet and defend these editors in everything they do. They're not god. And if you fear being ostracized by their little elitist club, then I'm sorry to say, you're no man with testicles. And deep down, you KNOW I'm right!

Decline reason:

That's drek, chummer. The rules flatly state that using alternate accounts to attempt to circumvent a block or ban, no matter how well-intentioned or defensive in action, is not allowed. Also, as indicated above by FisherQueen, you cannot blame others for your block because, ultimately, it is your actions, not those of an agent provocateur, that results in a block. It is not the actions of administrators doing their jobs only to be screamed at by people screaming "elitism" for no reason than it being a person with administrative permissions reviewing and rejecting their unblock requests for valid reasons (One-Armed Man defenses, sockpuppetry) nor the actions of a person coarse in tongue but well in intent; it is the actions of the party seeking an unblock that led to the situation where they must. Declined. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 02:04, 11 September 2009 (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.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Actually, your use of multiple accounts in violation of the rules is precisely the point. If I was in a situation in which there was a large community of experienced people, and I did something that resulted in my being blocked, and nothing bad happened to the others, and no one at all took my side, no matter how many uninvolved people I asked to review my situation, but instead, they all said that I was in the wrong, I would take a deep, calming breath and carefully consider the possibility that I might be in the wrong. But that's just me; you may behave differently. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:49, 11 September 2009 (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).

Ingrid4hubby (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Jeremy, first of all, I'm not into your american lingo when you said to me, "drek and chummer". I don't want to be your friend, and you don't know me like that to be talking to me like I'm one. So, let's leave that homosexual talk out of the conversation. Second of all, you said that, "you cannot blame others for your block because, ultimately, it is your actions, not those of an agent provocateur, that results in a block." So, I guess if a user or editor insults you, that I got to sit there and take it while he continues to insult me and nothing happens to him. And when I complain about it, nothing happens to him. That makes no sense. Then, you said that the block was placed on me because I used mutiple accounts. THAT'S NOT WHY I WAS BANNED. I was banned because when I defended myself against the users who insutled me, I was banned. Why are you blaming me for "mulitiple accounts creation" when you know that I was banned for defending myself against these bigoted idiots? So, if someone continuously and intentionally steps on your shoe and you do nothing about it, what that says is that you're a coward. If you want to live your life as such, then, go ahead. Good luck finding a girl who's attracted to spineless cowards. Don't insult my intelligence. I was banned because I defended myself against those who offended me FIRST. So, stop bending over for these "guys", unless you like that sick stuff. And FisherQueen, you are not being accurate when you say that people who insult you and you not being able to do anything about them and "taking a deep breath" even though they say you're wrong. This is because the people who insult you are ganging up on you with the power to do so. And no majority of people have said I was wrong. I've asked about this situation to many people and they say I was right to defend myself. The reason why wiki says I'm wrong is because they defend their own. Users have little voice. I've seen many users complain about this on many discussion pages and were eventually turned down. This is why wiki is a group of mostly american racist neo-nazi bigots who feel that they're right and every culture is wrong, no matter how many good sources they provide. I guess from now on my only defense is to attempt to create a new account from an alternate IP or another computer. But don't worry. When that happens, I promise I won't insult your holy elite nazi group. If I have a problem with an editor, I'll ignore him. I would send a formal complaint to wiki. But in the past, formal complaints have been tossed to the wayside, so that's not effective anyway. Before closing, I want to also add that your american empire is falling, thank god. Your bigotry and racist elitism is falling apart. And the reason why racism is now on a new rise is because there's a black president, there's more interacial marriages going on, and terrorists have got you by the balls. And they're laughing at your weak gay ass while you can't do anything about it. And this is why the american wiki neo-nazi racist editors are feeling their power slowly diminishing. That's why they feel they have to "preserve" what little "superior" culture they have on wiki. Because they fear other cultures taking over wiki. By the way, I celebrate 9/11 every year. I'm not muslim, but I understand them now and I support them 1000%. Ingrid4hubby (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No reason given to unblock. A diatribe is valueless. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:41, 11 September 2009 (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.

Talk:Castle

You feel that the current castle article is biased. Setting aside previous events, would you like to explain here, in clear terms, what you would like to see happen to the article to make it better in your opinion? On the talk page, your original point of was lost in the maelstrom a maelstrom of accusations of discrimination. You said that it was too focussed on England, France, Spain, and Germany and that "there is hardly any mention of portuguese castles and European countries that have made significant contributions to castle building and design". The article is not perfect, and providing reliable source (not encyclopedias or travel guides mind) would certainly help, or at the very least some titles of books you think would be useful in expanding the article would be helpful.

If you want to be unblocked, you must convince administrators that "the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead". This will not be achieved through attacks, but working constructively to improve the castle article through discussion here would be a good first step. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this person is still creating sockpuppets, I don't think an unblock is in the future. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attack

Please refrain from disparaging other cultures and languages. "Drek" (דרעק) is Yiddish and labeling an entire language-group as "homosexual" is not appropriate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Drek" and "Chummer" are also shadowspeak, a fact which anyone with Google can figure out if they go places other than UrbanDictionary. In the latter's case, there's no sexual overtones. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this user already knows this. If anyone monitoring this talk page thinks I should not disable this user's ability to edit the talk page, say so before I log back in for breakfast around 11:00 UTC. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]