User talk:Sodapaps

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Kristi Noem, you may be blocked from editing. InaMaka (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Farm Subsidy Controversy

It is well documented that Racota Valley Ranch (Kristi's ranch) has received $2,598,827 in farm subsidies since 1995. This is fact and as such is unbiased information. If you don't believe this should be a part of this page then please explain your logic. Otherwise the continued removal of this section will be reported to the admin page as persistent vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodapaps (talk • contribs) 05:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sodapaps: You have written a highly biased section. It is one-sided and it is a personal attack on a living person, which violates various Wikipedia rules. You have been editing the article as a sockpuppet--changing IP addresses, etc. You have removed factual information over and over again, e.g., the FACT that Noem is the Assistant Majority Leader and the citation for that FACT. You editing is a combination of POV pushing, falsehoods, and removal of fully source relevant information. If you want to edit the article feel free, but if you engage in edits that are POV pushing and violations of BLP, then I will revert your edits. You are either a sockpuppet of an earlier editor and that is why you concealed your identity behind a series of IP addresses OR you are a new editor and you simply do not understand the rules of Wikipedia. Now, let's get this straight one more time, an "alma mater" is simply a school where an individual attended--please read the Wikipedia definition of "alma mater" closely because for a school to be someone's alma mater they do not have to graduate. That is a fact. Now, you might not like that FACT, but it is not up to you to enforce your own POV on the article. Please see the article on Bill Gates or hundreds of other people that have articles about them that did not graduate from various schools. SDSU is Noem's alma mater and that is all there is to it. Also, it is POV pushing to state that she is "a 38 year old college dropout." That is a inherently biased comment and as such it will be edited or removed. Please learn the rules of Wikipedia before you start to edit.--InaMaka (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for instructions. Thank you.--InaMaka (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--InaMaka (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Farm Subsidy Controversy

It is well documented that Racota Valley Ranch (Kristi's ranch) has received $2,598,827 in farm subsidies since 1995. This is fact and as such is unbiased information. If you don't believe this should be a part of this page then please explain your logic. Otherwise the continued removal of this section will be reported to the admin page as persistent vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodapaps (talk • contribs) 05:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sodapaps: You have written a highly biased section. It is one-sided and it is a personal attack on a living person, which violates various Wikipedia rules. You have been editing the article as a sockpuppet--changing IP addresses, etc. You have removed factual information over and over again, e.g., the FACT that Noem is the Assistant Majority Leader and the citation for that FACT. You editing is a combination of POV pushing, falsehoods, and removal of fully source relevant information. If you want to edit the article feel free, but if you engage in edits that are POV pushing and violations of BLP, then I will revert your edits. You are either a sockpuppet of an earlier editor and that is why you concealed your identity behind a series of IP addresses OR you are a new editor and you simply do not understand the rules of Wikipedia. Now, let's get this straight one more time, an "alma mater" is simply a school where an individual attended--please read the Wikipedia definition of "alma mater" closely because for a school to be someone's alma mater they do not have to graduate. That is a fact. Now, you might not like that FACT, but it is not up to you to enforce your own POV on the article. Please see the article on Bill Gates or hundreds of other people that have articles about them that did not graduate from various schools. SDSU is Noem's alma mater and that is all there is to it. Also, it is POV pushing to state that she is "a 38 year old college dropout." That is a inherently biased comment and as such it will be edited or removed. Please learn the rules of Wikipedia before you start to edit.--InaMaka (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

First off, I am not sockpuppet. I did create the original edits for the controversy portion as well as removing the "alma matter" section as it is misleading and biased in its own way. However, I was not signed in at the time so only my IP appears. Fortunately for me, others have stepped in to help revert your blatant vandalism of Kristi's page. The farm subsidies she has received are well documented facts and are not POV or biased. They are what they are. It's as if I said she was female, and you complained that that was POV. As of this moment, I am reverting the page back and keeping the Alma Matter section. Sodapaps (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have stated over and over again on your various talk pages (both your current and your three IP address talk pages) and elsewhere, "alma mater" is a school where you attended and Wikipedia does NOT require that someone graduate from a school for it to be considered an alma mater. Once again, please review Bill Gates; he attended but did not graduate from Harvard University. Please review Sarah Palin; she attended several schools--and they are all listed in her bio--but she only graduated from one of them. Also, I made changes to the article, based upon your concerns, that make it clear that Noem has attended SDSU but has not graduated--similar to the way that Gates' tenure at Harvard is treated in Wikipedia. As to the farm subsisdy issue, you have written it in a POV pushing way and then you told me to edit it so that it isn't POV. That's not the way that Wikipedia works. You are responsible for your edits. If you want to add the farm subsisdy information and you find reliable sources to back up the information that you put in the article then it might be appropriate. But the way that you wrote it and the sources that you used it was not appropriate according to the Wikipedia rules. You MUST follow BLP, NPOV, and you must use reliable sources to back up whatever is place there. Your addition did not do that.--InaMaka (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, this is the first time we have discussed these issues. Further, I have never asked you to edit anything I have posted. Please stop inferring that I am someone else. All it does is lower your credibility. I am willing to allow the "alma mater" piece to stand, however misleading it may be. However, I will continue to push the issue of the farm subsidy controversy as it is fact. Most historical figures on Wikipedia have sections that list controversies. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that this is against Wikipedia policy. I have even added a legitimate source as you have requested. Do what you may, but if you remove this section I will simply continue to add it back in.Sodapaps (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Wikipedia is a team project and you MUST follow the rules and since you are a new editor you should take the time to learn these rules. POV pushing is not allowed. Reliable sources MUST be used. And it is NOT up to you to "allow" SDSU to be listed as her alma mater. SDSU is her alma mater and you have no control over that fact and whether it be in the article. Also, your own personal commentary is not allowed. Also, since your editing has been what it has been it is not my credibility that is in question. You were editing with personal commentary--with no reliable sources--you were removed reliably sourced notable info (the FACT that Noem's alma mater is SDSU). You need to work on your credibility by simply learning the rules since you are a brand new editor. You will not add back in anything that is not reliably sourced, that is POV pushing, that is personal attack on a living person (such as your additions where wrote "She is a college drop-out" over and over again). Those types of edits will be removed.--InaMaka (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain to me how the inclusion of the farm subsidy is POV? I have removed all "biased" citations and inserted a citation from a legitimate source. Also, I never put that she dropped out of college. You have now resorted to lying, which, once again, lowers your credibility. Also, I apologize. i was not signed in when I made the last edit. Oooo! Now you can claim I am 6 different people again!Sodapaps (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you should learn the rules of Wikipedia before you decide you are going to edit. It is clear that you don't know the rules based upon your editing activity and your questions about basic rules. When you put in the article that "she dropped out of college." You are violating several Wikipedia rules. First of all, she has NOT dropped out of college. She is currently attending SDSU therefore with your lie you violated BLP rules where you just simply made up a negative allegation and placed it in Wikipedia, i.e., you spoke ill of a living person. With your lie you violated one of the pillars of Wikipedia which is write the articles with a neutral point of view. You have been editing with 5 different IP addresses and you have been lying about that, claiming that there are several other editors that agree with you. That is BS. Who are these mythical editors?? Why doesn't this group of four editors have names and are registered? Why?? You don't have a good answer for that question because you know and I know that all of those IP addresses were you and lied about how they belonged to others. You aren't one to talk about anyone's credibility when you hide behind various IP addresses and lie about who they belong to. You also have no room to discuss credibility since you flat out lied, several times, by editing the article and stating that she "dropped out of college." She is in college right now, so you flat out lied. Since she is in college you can't call her a "drop out" unless you are a liar. Yeah, I know that I sound childish but apparently I have to get down to your immature level and explain your BS to you in the starkest terms since you either refuse to follow the rules or you mentally cannot understand the rules. Also, about the farm subsidy info. All of the comments that you placed in the article are your opinion. You did not quote anyone. It was all you. You are a Wikipedian you don't have a right to express your opinion in the article. That is why I will remove it all day long. Remember if you revert three of more times in one day then you have violated the 3RR rule so don't do it. If you want to personally attack the Kristi Noem because you don't like her politics go get a blog and do it there. The Wikipedia article is no place for your BS opinions. Learn the rules, nubie, and follow them, nubie. Can you do that, nubie?????--InaMaka (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Even though you may not care

First, I appreciate you finally allowing the farm subsidy issue to stand and i don't mind it's current form. Second, I am not a sockpuppet. Whether you choose to believe it or not this is my only Wikipedia identity. I'm glad to see some have called you on this. Anyway, have a nice day.Sodapaps (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again, sock. No one has disputed that your edits look like the work of a sock. Have a good day, socky.--InaMaka (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you really aren't as bright as I believed. By your attempts to continue to defend your sockpuppetry you dig a deeper hole for your lack of knowledge. There are hundreds of websites on the Internet where someone, such as yourself, that can go and mask your IP address with a proxy. Its done all the time, sock. You don't have anything on me. You know it and I know it. By the way, I'm not self-righteous, I'm just right and you are no match for my wits. Its as simple as that. You feel the need to accuse me of self-righteousness because I have proven you to be a new editor that did not understand the rules of Wikipedia and I proved without question that you were breaking them and I set you straight. You are just pathetically looking something, anything, to save face, but you can't. Deal with it. Man up.--InaMaka (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL! I knew the first thing you would say was that I could be switching my IP. That's right nub, I'm switching my IP to confuse Wikipedia. Of course my favorite part is where you claim that I have a lack of knowledge about IP's, and then you claim later, "You know it and I know it." Wait, if I have a lack of knowledge about that, how do I know it? Not only are you self-righteous, but your comment that I am no match for your wits proves that you are also insecure and trite. That being said, thankfully you are right. I am no match for your wits as I would have to be incredibly dumb to achieve that. I was done with you awhile back, but man, you make this so much fun.Sodapaps (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, if you're not swapping IPs, how did you change from Special:Contributions/64.179.158.185 (South Dakota) to Special:Contributions/67.54.133.37 (Minnesota) in a relatively short time? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sodapaps, you have given us all of the IP addresses that you have been editing under. Remember if I am trite, then why do you keep arguing with me? I guess you are as trite as I am. But I know why you keep arguing with me because you have been caught dead in your sockpuppet tracks. I wonder if someone should do a check and compare those IP addresses to previous known editors of the Noem article? Talk you later after your next witless response, Sock.--InaMaka (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of three days for the repeated use of personal attacks against other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions, but please keep in mind that Wikipedia editors are expected to demonstrate respect for one another. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Ckatz^chat_spy 09:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I find it interesting that InaMaka calls me a nubie, a liar, and a sockpuppet over and over (which simply is not true and to which I have provided ample evidence of this fact), refuses to work with me on edits I wished to make to Kristi Noem's page, would not answer my questions about his concerns on Kristi's talk page, and when I finally have had enough of his repeated personal attacks you block me. Well, I have learned a valuable lesson, and that is that you should never trust anything on Wikipedia because it is not only biased bull shit, but the administrators are complete fucktards. I don't really care at this point if I am blocked or not, so fuck you.

Decline reason:

Thanks for sharing. None of this appears to be a valid reason to unblock you and so I'll decline to do that; this sort of message may contribute to a longer block in the future, FYI. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Oooo... god forbid you block me longer. What a fucking joke. lol.

Decline reason:

you have not asked to be unblocked, still less given a reason why you should be. JohnCD (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Sockpuppet investigations (SPI) on Sodapaps

Just so that you know, a sockpuppet investigation (SPI) has been opened. You can review it here: Sodapaps sockpuppet investigation--InaMaka (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Just so that you know" huh?

June 2010

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you are serious about contributing, please desist from your current activities and focus on adding useful content. Ckatz^chat_spy 02:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Ckatz^chat_spy 18:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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 should 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) 16:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. (blocked by –MuZemike 07:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC))
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.