Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:I cited my source. ] (]) 01:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:I cited my source. ] (]) 01:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
::Your source did not say anything about "nationalization" or George Bush, so you basically made some of it up - original research. '''Also''', is pure synthesis of multiple sources that violates the ] with more "however"-style constructs. I suggest you self revert and cease this agenda-based editing immediately. -- ] (]) 02:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
::Your source did not say anything about "nationalization" or George Bush, so you basically made some of it up - original research. '''Also''', is pure synthesis of multiple sources that violates the ] with more "however"-style constructs. I suggest you self revert and cease this agenda-based editing immediately. -- ] (]) 02:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
== Topic ban right around the corner ==
I've been here to warn you before, and this is really and truly the final warning. Your recent editing over at ] is unacceptable and part of a larger pattern whereby you engage in original research and/or use poor sources (or use acceptable sources inappropriately) in order to push non-NPOV, and at times non-notable, material into various Barack Obama related articles. The following three diffs all show problematic recent edits in this regard.
The next time I see edits along these lines, I intend to ban your from Barack Obama articles for a fairly lengthy period of time per ]. After taking note of your editing pattern on these articles for some time, I've come to the conclusion that your contributions there are almost exclusively non-constructive. This is a final chance to change course, but if I see or am informed of these kind of edits again you will be banned from these articles. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 04:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This is just another in a very long line of agenda-driven edits that must stop, Grundle. How many times do you have to be told that these newsbites you keep shoving into articles are completely inappropriate? Yet again, you have inserted something into Political positions of Barack Obama that is not a political position. This is highly disruptive behavior for which you have received multiple warnings. Stop it now. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
That's not balance. That's agenda-based editing, commonly referred to as "POV pushing". It shows a complete lack of understanding of WP:NPOV. You need to stop this tactic of putting trivial, poorly-sourced crap into Obama-related articles immediately. I'm going to request that you should be a named party in the ArbCom investigation. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think the San Francisco Chronicle is a poor source? Why do you think the Communist Party website is a poor source for the views of the Communist Party? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You are missing the point. It's not about the sources (although you synthesized meaning here by combining two sources), but about the appropriateness of the edits. As usual, you made no attempt to discuss what you surely knew would be highly contentious additions before putting them in. As usual, you added something that was not a political position into an article listing political positions. Every edit you make seems to be a bad faith attempt to smear Barack Obama, and that kind of agenda-based editing is totally unacceptable for Misplaced Pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not synthesis, because one source cited the other source. And I didn't "smear" Obama - all I did was cite the facts. Obama said he would stop the DEA raids on medical marijuana, but he did not keep his promise. Don't blame me for that - blame Obama. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You need to self-revert this crap immediately. It is not a political position. It is a claim by some random magazine. Stop your bad faith edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I read everything that you said. You said my entries were "poorly-sourced." But then after I defended the sources, you said it's not about the sources. You also falsely accused me of doing "original research," "inserting unpublished information," and putting my "personal analysis" into articles. You keep making one false accusation after another. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I cited my sources for everything. Everything was published. There was no original research. There were no personal attacks. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Party
I went and added you to the party as an Obama case. Doesn't mean you will or won't be sanctioned, though if you have any evidence you wish to add, or wish to propose or comment on ideas in the workshop, you are certainly welcome to. Wizardman21:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The article is about Johnston and not about the impregnation of Sarah Palin's daughter. He might be notable for that, but the article is not about that event. Please move back at once.TharsHammar and 17:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
..."the article is not about that event". Have you read it lately? If the article is not about that 1 event, why is the entire ongoing Afd discussion revolving around the applicability of the BLP1E policy, which by the way specifically advises renaming 1 event articles for the event they cover. And don't template the regulars, it's just rude. (this guy registered in April 07 for crying out loud). On first impression, this guy is being harassed, templated and now blocked, for simply being being bold. MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I would, however, urge you to consider whether boldly moving a high-profile BLP during a contentious AFD discussion without a proper WP:RM discussion was a good idea. Proposing the move on the talk page first may have avoided all this. Keep this in mind for the future. –xeno22:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Talk:Michelle Obama. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Talk:Michelle Obama at the Reference desk.
Your source did not say anything about "nationalization" or George Bush, so you basically made some of it up - original research. Also, this addition is pure synthesis of multiple sources that violates the neutral point of view with more "however"-style constructs. I suggest you self revert and cease this agenda-based editing immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Topic ban right around the corner
I've been here to warn you before, and this is really and truly the final warning. Your recent editing over at Presidency of Barack Obama is unacceptable and part of a larger pattern whereby you engage in original research and/or use poor sources (or use acceptable sources inappropriately) in order to push non-NPOV, and at times non-notable, material into various Barack Obama related articles. The following three diffs all show problematic recent edits in this regard.
The next time I see edits along these lines, I intend to ban your from Barack Obama articles for a fairly lengthy period of time per Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. After taking note of your editing pattern on these articles for some time, I've come to the conclusion that your contributions there are almost exclusively non-constructive. This is a final chance to change course, but if I see or am informed of these kind of edits again you will be banned from these articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs04:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. 
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The article is about Johnston and not about the impregnation of Sarah Palin's daughter. He might be notable for that, but the article is not about that event. Please move back at once. TharsHammar and 17:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
