| Revision as of 14:45, 2 November 2008 editBBBH (talk | contribs)48 editsm →November 2008← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:43, 2 November 2008 edit undoPriyanath (talk | contribs)Rollbackers9,478 edits →Don't fall into their trap: friendly adviceNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| :5. If the editor doesn't go away, they usually find a way to get the editor blocked. This is usually highly effective on new users, but I have seen them do it to more experianced users as well. | :5. If the editor doesn't go away, they usually find a way to get the editor blocked. This is usually highly effective on new users, but I have seen them do it to more experianced users as well. | ||
| The trick is to not fall into their trap. You can say your piece, but the problem is that they only deal with one editor at a time, so they can basically pick away at that editor and then deal with the next one when he comes along. This is a highly effective strategy that is working for them. I suggest that we continue to make suggestions and wait until a new consensus is reached. The problem with these editors is that they are unwilling to compromise at all, even on the obvious points. My argument is that the Obama article is sugar-coated and not ], especially if alternative arguments are not included in the article. Its best not to get into an edit war and stop adding things that they do not like. That will only get you in trouble. There are too many of them and the only way to deal with their sugar-coating is to reach a new consensus and compromise.--] (]) 14:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC) | The trick is to not fall into their trap. You can say your piece, but the problem is that they only deal with one editor at a time, so they can basically pick away at that editor and then deal with the next one when he comes along. This is a highly effective strategy that is working for them. I suggest that we continue to make suggestions and wait until a new consensus is reached. The problem with these editors is that they are unwilling to compromise at all, even on the obvious points. My argument is that the Obama article is sugar-coated and not ], especially if alternative arguments are not included in the article. Its best not to get into an edit war and stop adding things that they do not like. That will only get you in trouble. There are too many of them and the only way to deal with their sugar-coating is to reach a new consensus and compromise.--] (]) 14:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Hi BBBH, please try to not buy into this 'us and them' thing. With so much grotesque vandalism (lots of 'n' word additions) and bizarre nonsense ('he was born in Kenya', 'muslim', 'communist', etc.) being added to the ] article over the last several days, there are good reasons the article is on ]—and that the bar is higher than for other articles as far as adding new information. | |||
| :It's also a ], which is written in a ], which means that sections are summarized, or else the article will get way too long. Read those links to get an understanding of what I'm saying. | |||
| :Regarding your attempt to add the information about Obama's Illinois Senate career: first, it's already included in the ], and done in a neutral manner. ("Prior to the primary, Obama challenged the validity of ballot petition signatures for his opponents, resulting in their exclusion from the ballot and allowing him to run unopposed in the primary.") I'm guessing that the reason it's only given one sentence is that this is not an uncommon thing. I see this happening in the state that I live all the time. When ballot propositions and candidates don't put out enough effort to get on the ballot—by barely meeting the signature requirement—they are often challenged by their opponents. Typically, a certain percentage of signatures are tossed because they are invalid. This is not a new political tactic. Note that the Illinois Senate article presents this subject in a neutral way—Obama didn't remove his opponents, state law did. | |||
| :Obama's friendship with Emil Jones, Jr., leader of the state senate, is also mentioned at ], and given a few sentences. Compare your way of trying to present it in the Obama article with the way it's presented in the Senate career article. Again, you'll see it's done neutrally and with context. It also was determined to not be essential to the Featured Obama article, which again is written in Summary Style. Personally, I found this part of Obama's rise to be interesting—unlike many politicians, he has willingly found mentors and advisors to help him with both his campaigns and with policy advice. His friendship with ] is one example, which is also not included in the ] article. I don't see anyone complaining that Buffet's exclusion from the article is unfair—again, there just isn't enough room in the article. | |||
| :I hope you continue to edit Misplaced Pages. I suggest editing other non-controversial articles to learn about policy. That's what I did. Best, <small>~ </small>] <small><i><sup>]</sup></i></small> 16:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:43, 2 November 2008
Welcome!
Hello, BBBH, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Terraxos (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Spelling etc.
Hi BBBH, please don't change spelling without first checking which spelling standard is being used. Misplaced Pages recognizes and accepts both the spelling conventions of the USA (American English) and of the UK and her commonwealth of countries (Commonwealth English). Turion uses commonwealth English so the word specialised is correctly spelled and doesn't need changing specialized. Thanks Velela (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
November 2008
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Barack Obama, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please stop Digital 19:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Barack Obama, you will be blocked from editing. Grsz 20:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the above message is false. My discussion was genuine. The warning was not in good faith. Although I can't say if it is from an Obama supporter, a partisan supporter would do something like putting a false warning
Don't fall into their trap
As per your comment on my talk page I agree. This is no time to be creating an atmosphere of censorship. I had been silently monitoring the techniques of a few editors on the Obama talk page for a while. The pattern is always the same.
- 1. They wait until someone makes an edit or a comment that contradicts their ideas.
- 2. They revert the edit, or in the case of comments, begin a campaign of alternative comments to give the impression of consensus.
- 3. They then wait for the next comment and begin throwing out wikipedia policy after policy, which they have already prepared in advance.
- 4. They attack the editor, calling him a troll or disruptive and sometimes they are uncivil.
- 5. If the editor doesn't go away, they usually find a way to get the editor blocked. This is usually highly effective on new users, but I have seen them do it to more experianced users as well.
The trick is to not fall into their trap. You can say your piece, but the problem is that they only deal with one editor at a time, so they can basically pick away at that editor and then deal with the next one when he comes along. This is a highly effective strategy that is working for them. I suggest that we continue to make suggestions and wait until a new consensus is reached. The problem with these editors is that they are unwilling to compromise at all, even on the obvious points. My argument is that the Obama article is sugar-coated and not NPOV, especially if alternative arguments are not included in the article. Its best not to get into an edit war and stop adding things that they do not like. That will only get you in trouble. There are too many of them and the only way to deal with their sugar-coating is to reach a new consensus and compromise.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi BBBH, please try to not buy into this 'us and them' thing. With so much grotesque vandalism (lots of 'n' word additions) and bizarre nonsense ('he was born in Kenya', 'muslim', 'communist', etc.) being added to the Barack Obama article over the last several days, there are good reasons the article is on article probabation—and that the bar is higher than for other articles as far as adding new information.
- It's also a Featured Article, which is written in a Summary Style, which means that sections are summarized, or else the article will get way too long. Read those links to get an understanding of what I'm saying.
- Regarding your attempt to add the information about Obama's Illinois Senate career: first, it's already included in the Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama, and done in a neutral manner. ("Prior to the primary, Obama challenged the validity of ballot petition signatures for his opponents, resulting in their exclusion from the ballot and allowing him to run unopposed in the primary.") I'm guessing that the reason it's only given one sentence is that this is not an uncommon thing. I see this happening in the state that I live all the time. When ballot propositions and candidates don't put out enough effort to get on the ballot—by barely meeting the signature requirement—they are often challenged by their opponents. Typically, a certain percentage of signatures are tossed because they are invalid. This is not a new political tactic. Note that the Illinois Senate article presents this subject in a neutral way—Obama didn't remove his opponents, state law did.
- Obama's friendship with Emil Jones, Jr., leader of the state senate, is also mentioned at Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama, and given a few sentences. Compare your way of trying to present it in the Obama article with the way it's presented in the Senate career article. Again, you'll see it's done neutrally and with context. It also was determined to not be essential to the Featured Obama article, which again is written in Summary Style. Personally, I found this part of Obama's rise to be interesting—unlike many politicians, he has willingly found mentors and advisors to help him with both his campaigns and with policy advice. His friendship with Warren Buffett is one example, which is also not included in the Barack Obama article. I don't see anyone complaining that Buffet's exclusion from the article is unfair—again, there just isn't enough room in the article.
- I hope you continue to edit Misplaced Pages. I suggest editing other non-controversial articles to learn about policy. That's what I did. Best, ~ priyanath 16:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)