Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Noroton (talk | contribs) at 02:04, 6 June 2008 (→Prefer a different Option with more details than Option 3: adjust). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I'm a member of Daily Kos. I've been using Misplaced Pages for about four years and I've become fairly familiar with the culture, customs and bureaucracy of Wikipedians. So I thought I'd give it a go. Let's all play nicely with one another, and make this the great online resource it was intended to be. Kossack4Truth (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Kossack4Truth! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! HailFire (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Review of Barack Obama's status as a featured article

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama concerns

Hey thanks for your message on the FAR page. I'm ready and willing to "change", as Mr. Obama says so often (sorry, I couldn't resist!). I'll work with you, Kossack, and others but until the article is more netural, I have to keep my vote of removal. I'll start looking for some critical things about the Senator, and we need to being getting rid of the quotes used to describe his poisitions. Agreed? I'm going to drop this message to User:DiligentTerrier too, because he also voted to remove it. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I commented at your discussion. Here's a quote that Obama said of himself in his early years: "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man.... I got high push questions of who I was out of my mind." Now I'm not sure if that quote is entirely suitable, but the subject of the article where it is written is: this from the Washington Post. Here is a criticism of the book by Ann Coulter, some of the stuff in there is not suitable for the article, but the main points of racism certainly are. Happyme22 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama FAR

Hi there, I am just writing to inform you that we have apparently been conducting the Barack Obama FAR incorrectly. Your vote of "keep" or "remove" should be struck out and reinserted when the nomination moves into FARC (per the directions at WP:FAR). I was just notified of this myself; please see the bottom of the FAR page for more. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Kosack you and I are going to disagree there. I think that there is some "hope" for the article, but as of now I still am endorsing a removal from FA status. Happyme22 (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama comment

Actually, I am so completely appalled by the edits and comments that you, Andy, and the Locust have been making that I really don't care what any of you say or think or do. During the earlier page protection, we made excellent progress discussing ways to compromise and build consensus for changes to the article. As soon as page protection expired, you guys basically f***ed it all up. You all just went ahead and did your own thing, completely ignoring all the goodwill and compromise that had been carefully fostered before. I get that you hate Obama, but do you have to go and ruin Misplaced Pages just to proclaim your hatred to the world? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wright

Please stop adding more Wright-related stuff without discussing it on the talk page first. You know that a consensus for the current paragraph has been painstakingly worked out over the last couple of weeks and just throwing new stuff in there like that is only going to restart the edit war. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And the same is true of your Rezko obsession. Why do you completely ignore the talk page consensus? Why do you continue to violate Misplaced Pages policies like WP:WEIGHT? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in Barack Obama, and I'd be interested in your thoughts at Talk:Barack Obama#New attempt by Josiah if you can remain cool-headed, civil and respectful towards other contributors. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that right now you're focused on Rezko, but since you recently added a paragraph to the Wright section I'd really appreciate it if you could comment on the current version. I'm trying to reach a real consensus here, and I'd like you to be included in it, if possible. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Rezko

Hoping for your input on this new proposal. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that while you may not have technically violated the rule with more than 3 reversions within 24 hours, you have been edit warring against the spirit of wikipedia's 3 revert rule, ignoring the consensus on the talk page. --Matilda 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind, WP:3rr doesn't require that you be warned at any time before being blocked for edit warring. You can also be blocked for fewer than 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• (I have also left a reply n my talk page) I concur with Gwen Gale's comment above. You were adequately warned on your talk page about your edit patterns and with requests to use talk page and respect consensus. Are you seriously suggesting that you were in ignorance of wikipedia policies concerning editing behaviour? Particularly when one reads the diff which EdJohnston drew attention to? Having been warned, you may well be blocked again if you continue disruptive editing patterns.--Matilda 21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Barack Obama

I've asked for advice at User talk:Floorsheim just under your comment there. Please take a look and if you have any advice about the same thing, please leave me a comment on my talk page. I'd value your advice. Thanks. Noroton (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008 actions related to Barack Obama article

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Barack Obama. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting, in order to influence Barack Obama. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Misplaced Pages's common practice.", such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that has resulted in blocks being issued. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Misplaced Pages's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Brotherjr has posted a complaint at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit War/Continual Ayers/Rezco/Write Debate. Please make sure you aren't violating WP:3RR either technically or in spirit. It would be better to try to work out controversial changes on the talk page, with a consensus. Please, Kossack, I don't want to see you blocked. Please be patient. Noroton (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

The 3RR report was a bogus piece of crap, but I'm not sure you didn't vio 3RR with your edits after the ones listed. How do you count it up? Andyvphil (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Kossack4Truth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was just following the discussion on the Talk page. The discussion went against collecting all controversies in one place. It appeared to me that consensus was going to allow these controversies to be present in the article, but per Jimbo Wales in WP:CRIT they had to be woven throughout the fabric of the entire article rather than collected in one "Controversies" section. I acted in good faith, following my understanding of where consensus was taking us on the Talk page. Kossack4Truth (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In your unblock request you talk at length about presentation of content. However, you were blocked for edit warring, which is always deeply unhelpful, however strong your edits and sources may be. There is no reason to lift this block early if you don't acknowledge an understanding of 3rr and promise not edit war in the future. — Gwen Gale (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2008 (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.

Obama consensus

We are building a consensus on the Obama talk page, feel free to express your opinion when you have returned from your block, we are waiting for your return so your thoughts will be counted. We are going to make this as fair as possible, when you return please be civil, things seem to be gooding smoothly over there and we can do this like adults. Cheers. --— Realist (Come Speak To Me) 18:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively while on block you can make your wishes felt from your talk page, i will have your talkpage on my watchlist, i can transfer your thoughts to the Obama talk page. Any un civil comments will not be transferred. Yours. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 19:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm on business travel (work related emergency) and will be gone until Wednesday morning. I am remotely piloting my desktop at home to send this, since I do not have my passwords here. No time for this nonsense anyway. Too much real life work to be done. Thanks for thinking of me. I choose Noroton's No. 7 option or failing that, reluctantly Scjessey's No. 6, or No. 5 as a last resort. Funny strange how this block has no real effect on me, since I don't have much time to edit the article anyway, but would like to participate to the limited degree my work allows. Next you should proceed immediately with a similar set of options dealing with Rezko, and a third set of options for Wright. Kossack4Truth (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes we are going to do the same with each, I will notify that you want option 7. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 23:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you wait until consensus has been reached on Ayers before starting the discussion on getting consensus going on how to treat Rezko? The Ayers discussion is already confused enough without making it worse by throwing a new topic to discuss. --Bobblehead 01:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Impressive point

Hey, don't get blocked. We need you to make damn good points like this one:

We have room for Obama to report that he fancies himself a pretty good chili chef. This article is packed with the kind of trivia that Obama's campaign manager loves to see. If there's room for that kind of fluffy trivia, we have room for a treatment of Ayers and his Weatherman past. We have a separate article for United States Senate career of Barack Obama, but we also have room for 980 words in the "U.S. Senate" section in this article. We have a separate article for Political positions of Barack Obama, but we also have room for 1042 words in the "Political positions" section in this article. Surely we have enough room for an equally detailed examination of the presidential campaign, including controversial figures such as Ayers, in this article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That blew me a way. Look both ways before crossing the street. Make sure the bills are paid for your Internet service provider. And thanks. Noroton (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Should I call the question?

I'm thinking of asking for a vote right now on the Talk:Barack Obama page for Option 4. I'd also notify people on their talk pages to ask them to vote. Thoughts?Noroton (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as I look at the initial tally, Option 3 seemed to be the one that could get a definite consensus (as you know, it needs to be well over a majority). How's this?

Call the question now that we've discussed it in detail: Option 3 or not?

Please review the discussion between the initial tally ("!Votes (please move your votes to this section if they arent already and bolden them)") and this point, and perhaps previous discussions. For the sole reason that the initial tally seemed to give more support for Option 3 than any other choice, this is organized three ways around Option 3, but with total flexibility in voting for a preference. So after having seen additional discussion, which option do you support as a first or second choice? Please choose among the following choices, and if we get a consensus around one of them, we can go with that. Please keep in mind that we are trying to reach a consensus, which is something well over a majority:

Prefer something less specific than Option 3

Option 1 was to say nothing; Option 2 was to give Ayers name without identifying him and mention there was a controversy (Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. His association with Ayers would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.)

Please state your first and second preference here, in one place (please indicate that if there is a consensus for your second choice, you will support that choice instead):

Prefer Option 3 as first choice

Option 3: Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. His association with the former radical activist would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

Please state your first and second preference here, in one place:

Prefer a different Option with more details than Option 3

There are several other options already described above, but none have a large number of supporters.

Please state your first and second preference here, in one place (please indicate that if there is a consensus for your second choice, you will support that choice instead):

• 1. 4 as a first choice, 3 as second choice and my vote can be used for either one that gets consensus. I still think 7 is the best, but I think 3 and 4 can get consensus support. If it looks like we get consensus support for options 5, 6, 7, 8, I'd go with themNoroton (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)