This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nandesuka (talk | contribs) at 22:28, 7 July 2008 (→Discuss the topic, not the editors.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:28, 7 July 2008 by Nandesuka (talk | contribs) (→Discuss the topic, not the editors.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
Thank you Alison.
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Attacks
Regarding your comments on Talk:Barack Obama: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Accusing those who disagree with your POV of being campaign volunteers or staffers is unacceptable. Shem 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- tendentious editing - for this further edit and many others. You are edit warring on an important talk page, and behaving in a tendentious way. When you make an edit with the stated purpose of changing the slant of an article about a presidential candidate, referring to those who disagree with you as "campaign volunteers" you are not editing the encyclopedia constructively. If you do not stop it seems likely that you will be blocked from further editing. Wikidemo (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Request for your opinion
|
Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article | |
Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language
|
Barack Obama
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 Barack Obama, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Floridianed (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Blocked
I have blocked you for edit warring on the Barrack Obama article for 24 hours. If you wish to contest this block please use the {{unblock}} template. Scarian 18:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
{{unblock|Please review my last edit at Talk:Barack Obama where I agreed to "edit war no more." That was just minutes before I was blocked. A truce had been offered and when I noticed it, buried in the middle of the Talk page, I immediately agreed. The stated purpose of WP:BLOCK is not to punish, but to protect Misplaced Pages. Because of the truce, I believe that the block now serves no useful purpose, and prevents me from constructively editing and participating in that discussion. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)}}
No opinion on the block, but fixed the template. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Lovely. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- It seems this block expired before being addressed, so I have disabled the template. - auburnpilot talk 02:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Barack Obama
WB74, I'm taking a 30-day Wikibreak from the topic of Barack Obama, but I'd like to continue visiting you on your Talk page. Rely on moderators like Bigtimepeace. If there is breaking campaign news, I see no reason why it shouldn't be added to the article immediately, but be careful to do it using strictly neutral language. And be prepared to discuss and modify afterward. For any other addition of material that is not breaking news, always discuss it first on the Talk page and obtain consensus.
We have a truce based on an initiative started by Wikidemo. I am grateful to see that you have sigend on. Right now the only edit warrior who hasn't signed is User:Life.temp, and I can argue that he/she is headed for a topic ban. Please do not allow anyone to put you in the same category as LT. Sign on for the truce and let them be the ones who break it.
JJB has an excellent initiative based on the Ron Paul article and he deserves your consistent, calm and non-combative support. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you know how I feel from my e-mails. I am not very optimistic about what's going to happen next. But I promise to try and work it out. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I want to correct the mistake I made earlier. The original offer of a truce came from User:Shem, not User:Wikidemo. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Rezko and Obama vs. Paxson/Iseman and McCain
Hi - Will you work as hard on including information in the John McCain article concerning the letters he wrote in 1999 to the FCC urging "action" on a matter relating to Paxson Communications after receiving $20,000 in campaign contributions and numerous (four) campaign related "free" trips on Paxson's corporate jet (see )? I'm perfectly willing to WP:AGF, but I'm curious if you'd agree whether Obama's relationship with Rezko (which includes not even an allegation of any favoritism) has roughly the same significance as McCain's relationship with Paxson (or, more directly, Vicki Iseman who was lobbying on Paxson's behalf) and that arguing about one and not the other makes you look partisan. Is McCain your next stop in your relentless pursuit of the unvarnished truth?
...but seriously, I hope you understand the point here. One partisans's "oh my god, it's so obvious - I can't compromise on this, it's a matter of the truth vs. not the truth" might be not quite the same as another partisan's and it's entirely possible neither represents the NPOV truth. The point of NPOV is not to smear all candidates equally, but to talk about them all in the same, neutral, way. If the difference between Rezko/Obama and Paxson(Iseman)/McCain seems like night and day to you, I suggest you take a break and seriously examine your motives here. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't feel any need to take any breaks.
- Re Paxson: there is no allegation that anyone did anything illegal. There has been very little attention paid to this from critics or the neutral news media. According to Misplaced Pages standards, not much to go on.
- Re Iseman: no proof of anything illegal or inappropriate. There isn't even an allegation that anyone did anything illegal. Vicki Iseman isn't talking. McCain has denied the rumors. Apart from one story by the New York Times loaded with innuendo rather than facts, and picked up by other media because it was the New York Times rather than the National Enquirer that was peddling rumors, again there isn't much to go on according to Misplaced Pages standards.
- I have tried to seek guidance from written WP policy, and the unwritten policy represented by other articles covering similar subjects. Please see my comments about the well established precedent represented by George W. Bush, and other articles about prominent politicians during their campaigns for the highest elective offices they could reach, such as Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair, John Howard and John McCain.
- In particular, in October 2004 while Bush was in a hotly contested race for re-election, his WP biography contained at least 13 separate conjugations of the words "criticism," "critic" and "criticize." This despite the fact that there was a separate article about the 2004 presidential campaign. This is not an isolated example, and it's an extremely prominent article that has received the attention of Misplaced Pages's best and brightest, so it cannot be dismissed as an aberration. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Either you're not understanding my point or you really are editing from an entirely slanted POV. Yes, there's no allegation McCain did anything illegal for Paxson or vice versa. Similarly, there's no allegation Obama did anything illegal for Rezko or vice versa. On the other hand, while there's no allegation Obama expressed any favoritism toward Rezko there are undeniable reports McCain took action on Paxson's behalf (to the point that the chairman of the FCC remarked about how unusual this was). Obama casts himself has an ethical alternative to the usual slimely politicians which makes his association with Rezko, um, interesting. Similarly, McCain casts himself has a voice against special interests and particularly lobbyists, which I think makes this incident with Paxson at least as interesting. Surely you see how these two events are entirely parallel? Are they currently receiving the same amount of press coverage? No. But, the Paxson incident was reported by the NY Times and the Washington Post, which are not exactly the PR wing of the Democratic Party.
- The only reason to mention Iseman at all is that she provides the connection between McCain and Paxson. The point is not that they might have had an affair, but again the parallels with the Obama/Rezko connection are clear. You haven't exactly said it directly, but I assume you think because Obama admits a friendship with Rezko and Rezko has been convicted of bribery that a reasonable person should assume Rezko was bribing Obama. Misplaced Pages can't say this outright, but putting "Obama and Rezko were friends" and "Rezko was convicted of bribery" in consecutive sentences sort of makes this implication. Similarly, we can't say McCain and Iseman had an affair, but what would be the implication of saying "McCain and Iseman were friends" and "Iseman claimed she had connections to McCain" (followed up perhaps with the perfectly true fact that McCain's first marriage ended after he had an affair with an attractive younger blonde)?
- My point is that the difference between presenting the facts and twisting the facts to make a point almost certainly depends on your own POV. As far as I know you haven't self-identified as a McCain supporter. Your edits pretty clearly label you as one. The more you insist on painting Obama in the least flattering light the more obvious your own bias becomes. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- ...Are they currently receiving the same amount of press coverage? No. That is correct, and they never did. We have to follow what the largest groups of secondary sources find to be notable. As required by WP:NPOV and especially WP:FRINGE, at WP we have a duty to give proportionate coverage to non-fringe minority viewpoints, but we also have a duty to give no coverage at all to minority POVs that are indeed out on the fringe.
- A large number of reliable, neutral secondary sources find Obama's association with Rezko to be noteworthy and they're asking a lot of questions. But based on the volume of the coverage in reliable, neutral secondary sources, the viewpoint which finds the Paxson and Iseman stuff to be notable or questionable is a fringe viewpoint. There are a few, clearly partisan voices on progressive blogs that are trying to make a point about Paxson/Iseman, but they can't seem to get any traction in the neutral, mainstream media. NYT & WP mentioned it once or twice, but that was it as far as they were concerned. By comparison, the neutral media haven't dropped the Rezko stuff.
- Your perception of my political leanings is amusing, but when editing, I will go where the bulk of the secondary sources take me. I've done a lot of reading over the past few weeks, but it only supplements a lifetime of following US politics closely and carefully. I've read the secondary sources about the candidates, I've read Misplaced Pages policy, and I've read hundreds of encyclopedia biographies about famous politicians, in WP and in Encyclopedia Britannica. The standard for WP biographies of US presidents and presidential nominees is well-established. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Cut/paste
I noticed that you mentioned you can't cut and paste. May I ask why not? I'm just curious, really. --Clubjuggle /C 14:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks and take a look at my responses on the Obama talk page
WorkerBee74, I was too angry and upset to even look at the page for a while, but I'm grateful that you took up the argument in such a reasonable way. Inspired by you, I went back to it, and you might want to look at my replies to Rick Block, Wikidemo and Scjessey, since it might give you ideas about your own response. Thanks again, Noroton (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Unsolicited advice
You might want to find some other interests beyond Barack. There is plenty of interesting stuff to work on here. And try to remember to always log in... Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 17:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Discussion of the ground rules is welcome within the "proposed ground rules" section, however I disagree with your characterization on several fronts, to wit:
- "...encouraging others to use SPA tags. An SPA tag is quite clearly a challenge to the editor's motives" - If you read WP:SPA you will note that it cautions established users not to rush to bad-faith assumptions, and to avoid biting the newbies. The WP:SPA essay explicitly reminds participants be extra-careful to assume good faith. To this point, no one has been tagged as WP:SPA. How about we agree to revisit the issue if it begins to become a problem?
- "In effect you are giving one side in this debate, but not the other, carte blanche to constantly challenge the motives of the other side with such snide remarks as 'all the established editors are on my side.'" - Immediately after that comment was made, I left a note on its author's talk page reinforcing the need to focus on content and asserting that any claims of consensus at this point are very premature, and also reminding him to focus on content, not contributors. I have sent several such reminders today (check Special:Contributions/Clubjuggle) to editors on both sides of this debate, in the interest of keeping the discussion focused. If we go back to the previous meta-discussion of contributors' behavior, we will not make any more progress than we did the last go-round.
- For those reasons, and in the interest of keeping the discussion focused, I ask that if you have an issue with another editor, please either leave me a note here on my talk page so I can attempt to address it as mediator, or bring it up to the user directly (civilly, of course) on his or her talk page.
- Our best chance at finding a consensus will be to set aside any personal beefs with other editors and to focus on improving the baseline text. Thanks, --Clubjuggle /C 19:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Discussion of the ground rules is welcome within the "proposed ground rules" section, however I disagree with your characterization on several fronts, to wit:
WorkerBee74: Let me repeat my advice, a bit more strongly, mediator or no. You would be well advised to step away from this article. Seriously. A mediator won't be able to help you if it turns out you've been socking. Your comments at the SSP are not doing you any favors, the evidence strongly supports the allegations of misuse. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions on the Obama talk page, but...
... try to keep the tone mild. I know it's tempting to respond heatedly (I do it myself, of course), but Keep ducking and dodging and twisting and weaving, isn't going to help convince the other side (and I'm talking about other editors than Scjessey). There's a point at which heated language isn't going to bring us any closer to consensus, and too many people are already getting too tired to stick around. Besides, people can see he's ducking and dodging, and when they reach that conclusion themselves, it's more powerful than anything you or I could tell them. Unfortunately, a lot of the people who left would have been useful in helping to get to consensus. Eventually you and I are both going to get tired of this, so let's tone it down. You've made a lot of good contributions so far, by the way. Thanks for that. Noroton (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- User:Noroton's advice is sound, and his behavior in the discussion so far is a good model to follow. --Clubjuggle /C 19:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply to your note on User talk:Clubjuggle
- Thanks. Since the RFCU only returned "possible" it's certainly looks to me that User:Shem has overstepped by tagging you as a "confirmed" sockpuppet. I'll file a report an WP:AN/I. To be perfectly fair, though (and in the interest of full disclosure), the findings of the RFCU does create grounds for reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry. I therefore must also file a report at WP:SSP documenting those observations, so those with more experience than myself in making those determinations review the facts and make an appropriate determination. I will continue to assume good faith on your part unless and until an official determination would me made to the contrary. This SSP report is not in response to your request, I was actually started working on it an hour ago but my phone rang. --Clubjuggle /C 23:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please be aware that I have requested an AN/I that an uninvolved admin swing by your suspected sockpuppetry report and provide a resolution. --Bobblehead 04:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Since the RFCU only returned "possible" it's certainly looks to me that User:Shem has overstepped by tagging you as a "confirmed" sockpuppet. I'll file a report an WP:AN/I. To be perfectly fair, though (and in the interest of full disclosure), the findings of the RFCU does create grounds for reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry. I therefore must also file a report at WP:SSP documenting those observations, so those with more experience than myself in making those determinations review the facts and make an appropriate determination. I will continue to assume good faith on your part unless and until an official determination would me made to the contrary. This SSP report is not in response to your request, I was actually started working on it an hour ago but my phone rang. --Clubjuggle /C 23:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Clubjuggle /C 01:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Adding section breaks
Please stop adding section breaks, and then replying to comments in the new sections. It makes a thread very confusing to follow, and responses can be missed. There is also the potential for automated archive problems. Limit new sections to new topics, or sub-sections of existing topics. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Your contributions this morning
It's amazing what a good night's sleep and some time to think things over and gain perspective can do. Your proposals this morning show a new willingness to hear the other side and engage in some give and take, and I for one want you to know that has not gone unnoticed. Given recent history, it may take you some time to regain the trust of other editors, so please continue to exercise the restraint, patience, and willingness to temper rhetoric as you have in your post this morning. Thanks, --Clubjuggle /C 13:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read and heed
See this closing of the socking case. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Incident report filed at AN/I
Hello, WorkerBee74. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Clubjuggle /C 04:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Blocked
 |
Blocked: three days for edit warring. You've been reverting George Stephanopoulos multiple times with rather substandard sourcing, attempting to include allegations of ties to terrorist organizations in contravention of our WP:BLP policy. Your refusal to use the talk page, effort to chill the editing process, and pattern of poor behavior are having a negative effect on the editing atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect. When you come back from your block, please remember to make use of our various avenues of dispute resolution instead of bypassing the negotiating stage with hostile behavior such as continuous reverting. east.718 at 02:47, July 1, 2008 |
WorkerBee74 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I cannot cut and paste so cannot provide many diffs, please forgive me. The Washington Post is not "rather substandard sourcing." In fact, it is the gold standard of sourcing. It stated that Ayers launched the political career of Barack Obama by holding a fundraiser for him in Ayers' home in 1995, and that Ayers also donated $200 to Obama's campaign in 1998. Thus it was reasonable, and not a BLP violation, to describe Ayers as a "supporter." Scjessey was well aware of these facts and the reliably sourced support for them, due to his daily work on the related Barack Obama biography. He is also well aware that due to my physical inability to cut and paste, I can't easily copy the sources into the George Stephanopoulos biography. On my third revert I did laboriously type in the full Washington Post reference with footnote. Furthermore, I did attempt to use the Talk page but never saw any response from anyone, and will type in this diff to prove it: Scjessey has his own history of blocks for edit warring, and should be watched carefully. In this case, he followed his usual pattern of using BLP as a club to revert anything resembling criticism of Obama. The page itself appears to have resolved well with intervention by other editors, so we will have no resumption of the edit war on that page. I have already taken a pledge not to editwar on the main Barack Obama article, and have behaved reasonably well in that article for weeks despite a lot of baiting by Scjessey that has been recognized by other, well-established editors. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were edit warring, so I'm not going to unblock. You didn't exceed 3RR, however, a block can still be legitimately applied in these circumstances.
- Regarding the sourcing, presumably, we all could agree The Washington Post is a very good source, and blogs are very poor sources. Accordingly, if The Washington Post says the story comes from blogs, then it would be responsible to mention this in the article. Also, the subject of political endorsements from criminals is nearly always controversial. Remember, the BLP policy isn't just about libel, it also includes ensuring the neutral point of view policy is strictly adhered to. In this context, giving undue weight to a political endorsement from a criminal could reasonably be perceived as a BLP violation. In future, I suggest you use the talk page to gain consensus before making controversial changes.
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.
I've just gone to bat for you on User talk:PhilKnight's talk page. If he unblocks you, and you make me look bad, I'll be the first one asking for a tough response. I strongly suggest you review WP:CONSENSUS, and review the advice you've received on your talk page. And quit letting Scjessey bait you. You're welcome. Noroton (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
AN/I report - courtesy notice
I've filed a report your most recent post-block edits to the Barack Obama here: WP:AN/I#WorkerBee74 on Obama page, yet again. Wikidemo (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Blanking the Barack Obama article is a good way to earn another block. Don't do it again. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is the diff of you blanking the page. For what it's worth, I cannot believe you would intentionally do that. It must have been a Misplaced Pages error of some kind. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Go look at the page history. You did in fact blank the page. Also, any consensus, to the extent it exists, was for the use of the word in a specific context and phrasing. The use of criticism where you placed it is not supported. We are discussing the paragraph as a whole. Any consensus will be on the paragraph as a whole. Please use extreme caution when declaring consensus, especially declaring consensus in your favor. you seem to have had difficulty with this in the past. --Clubjuggle /C 21:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you were done a serious injustice
That three-day block was too harsh for someone who wanted to keep correct information in the article, and I think by the time of your third edit, the sourcing included was solid. If it had happened to me, I'd be fuming for a while afterward. I assume that has something to do with your blanking the Barack Obama page. It wouldn't surprise me if you were indefinitely blocked just for that. Please check your email in a bit, and please get away from Misplaced Pages and enjoy the holiday. Happy 4th. Noroton (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
please weigh in
While I am looking for supporters to "keep," please weigh in however you see fit at
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abongo_Obama
There is a strong movement to delete articles on Obama's relatives. This is of special concern to me based on the alleged ties between Obama and Islam--which I believe are overblown.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring warning.
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. You have been blocked in the past for this same behavior and people will not hesitate to block you again. I recommend that you moderate yourself, your edits, and apparent passion for Barack Obama.
I also highly recommend that you take a long wikibreak from all things related to Barack Obama and maybe apply some of your energies to non-controversial articles that can use your help and editing. Brothejr (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've noticed this to the ongoing AN/I discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WorkerBee74 again - Wikidemo (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Discuss the topic, not the editors.
Hello. Please consider this a polite warning from an uninvolved administrator. There has been discussion on the administrator's noticeboard regarding some of your recent editing activity. On briefly reviewing your contributions, I notice that you seem to have difficulty restraining yourself from commenting on your fellow editors (for example, referring to some of them as the "Barack Obama Whitewash Brigade", if I recall correctly.) Discussing editors, rather than their edits, has two problems. First, it is almost always spectacularly unpersuasive. Secondly, it is a slippery slope: what you consider to be a witty bon mot may be considered by the recipient or observers to be a clumsy and hateful insult, and may result in further unpleasant exchanges. Misplaced Pages users who are chronically incivil can be, and I assure you often are, given extended blocks or topic bans. I strongly suggest to you that if you wish to continue to participate here, you go to herculean efforts to comment only on article contents, ideas, and edits, and not on the editors. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)