User talk:Yamariel

Blocked
Temporarily blocked, for disruptive editing. -- Cirt (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm being miss treated.... it is bias from Diego Grez... and friends.
This other article doesn't even have not nearly as many sources as I have site... so its obvious that my article displays more information on the subject and is neutral reporting.... even my opinions are backed up by sources.
 * No, you are the one who is not respecting Wikinews' policies. Firstly, you can't write editorials/opinion texts here. Secondly, articles can't be signed. Thirdly, you were "vandalizing". Diego Grez (alternate account) alt. talk 19:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Diego you should be ashamed of yourself... this is a clear abuse of power. First you accuse me of being Sam Santiago and get one of my past edits deleted, then you with bias attempt to block my article on Wikinews which was much much more sourced than the other you claimed it was coped from; and plus you got whoever to restrict me from editing or disputing these bias actions through proper channels. Now you're trying to get a page deleted on me that is perfectly sourced as well. Well its time for me to take my case on you to the high people over these admins you're controlling.
 * "neutral reporting... even my opinions". Oh dear. You don't seriously expect us to believe you aren't a troll, do you? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We do not permit editorials, opinions, smear-jobs, or other such idiocy. Might I suggest you carefully read all the above policies linked-to in the above welcome template. Otherwise, ... We can yank the welcome mat out from under your feet very quickly. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk 19:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First, the article I wrote on Wikinews isn't an opinion piece... every statement has come from another source outside my own... if you read the sources completely you can see that. I just put a personal touch to the article to help give it favor outside the rest. Technically the statements were also proposed by Betty Liu on Bloomberg's "In the Loop" today... I could have stated that point but I was thinking the same thing when she said it. But for the sake of whatever the policies might believe is a purely neutral prospective I could change it to what I just said and add the source. But this page shouldn't be label an editorial for one opinion at the end of the article. And I certainly shouldn't have been restricted editing access to a page I'm suppose to be responsible for changing.  That is without doubt a sabotaging move...--Yamariel (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No personal touch. Just state the facts. Is that too hard to understand? No opinions whatsoever. Neutral plain facts only please. Get it?  — fetch · comms  21:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Who the hack are you? Didn't I just see you on Wikipedia? Look if we talk about facts then what I wrote basically still is very good.  Even the opinion can be revised to reflect Betty Liu's question rather than my own... but all of this drama seems very much like over kill... and bias from my point of view.--Yamariel (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly removing valid tags is disruptive. If you don't understand them ask. We don't bite - until you get disruptive. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well actually I thought you were some kind of sock of Diego... and if you notice I placed whatever was there with the review tag that the page asked me to place there after making edits. I really didn't think a review from whoever you are would come so quickly, but when I saw Diego in the mix I assumed bias intent from you...--Yamariel (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Btw, who's Miss Treated? It's a duplicate article, so policy dictates it won't be published. — Mike moral  ♪♫  21:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mike this isn't a duplicated article... I wrote this article with my own two hands early this morning while watching Bloomberg... I spent the rest of the time finding good sources, including waiting for Bloomberg to post the day's news. I didn't plan to put it on this particular news source but I thought I'd give it a shot... and actually it shouldn't be this much of a hassle.  If someone wrote on the same topic that shouldn't be too surprising because it's a big story now.  HP stock is still falling and their exec. need to pick a new CEO fast in order to settle fears.  Meanwhile the woman at the center of the storm is now saying she's sad he was fired... which I find funny... but I didn't put that in the article because then it would become an editorial.--Yamariel (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mikemoral means there is another en.Wikinews article about this news event, Hewlett-Packard CEO Mark Hurd resigns after sexual harassment investigation, which is older than yours. The two articles will need to be merged if they are not on separate be equally valid news angles. -  Amgine | t 00:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just read that article and it's last week's news... it only talks about Hurd leaving HP... the angle of my story is on the aftermath of the event... which is the fall in HP's stock due to investor lost faith in the company, plus I end with very current news with is the question of potential replacements and the company's desire to head in a new direction... these two articles may be related, but they are not the same.--Yamariel (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Additonal source
I noticed that one of my sources were removed for whatever reason... --Yamariel (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mispublish
Hi. Don't put the publish tag on articles you've written. That template is designed to be added to an article by an authorized peer reviewer (uninvolved with the article) when they publish it. --Pi zero (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)