Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:54, 6 December 2008

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not ranting about Misplaced Pages or politics. Dragons flight (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Leaving inappropriate edit summaries, such as what you did here, constitutes a personal attack and is against our policies. Furthermore, talk pages of controversial living persons is not a venue to share your tirades against administrators or editors, such as what you did here and here. Further abuse of this will result in a block. seicer | talk | contribs 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

MY RESPONSE to Bureaucracy of the Kingdom of wiki

My "tirade" as you call it is what the wider world is asking in regards to the inconsistent moderation of the political bios on wikipeida. You should be aware, the stakes are very very large, and the malfeasance of wikipeida's stewardship will be called to task and the rules in which this will happen will not be controlled by WP:Policy. Now, the world is watching and we will see who is right...

I rest my case on this matter.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(REMOVED THREAT BY A UNCIVIL EDITOR WHO THINKS HE"S KING)

YOU are the ABUSIVE ONE with THREATS AND INTIMATIONS as seen aboveOrangejumpsuit (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I have brought your recent edits to the attention of the administrative noticeboard, here. Wikidemon (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WIKIDEMON I don't LIKE YOUR CENSORSHIP and your Condescending attitude

Stuff like this is inflammatory and you need to escalate conflict Orangejumpsuit (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Blocked

You were warned that the above article is under article probation and your post was quite obviously intended as disruption - it is in no way reasonable to infer that your intent was to discuss an improvement to Barack Obama. When this block expires, if you wish to contribute to articles under probation, please follow the listed guidelines at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

NO, My intent is to establish the precedent which the writing style for Obama's Biography, be the model for other biography for other political office holders, particularly Republicans - which seem to be prone have negative stuff and to give the same protectionist vigor to this ad-hoc standard, given to the Obama biography to other political biographies. I think you are absolutely out of line to assume my intent and reason for my post on the Obama talk page. You, by banning me is not reasonable and to be disruptive. Its you that is disruptive by assuming intent when my intent is very clear which, again, is to to have all wikipeida political biographies, follow the same defacto guidelines and precedents set by the primary editors of the Obama biography. Once again bullying is unchecked on wikipeida Orangejumpsuit (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

NO, My intent is to establish the precedent which the writing style for Obama's Biography, be the model for other biography for other political office holders, particularly Republicans - which seem to be prone have negative stuff and to give the same protectionist vigor to this ad-hoc standard, given to the Obama biography to other political biographies. I think you are absolutely out of line to assume my intent and reason for my post on the Obama talk page. You, by banning me is not reasonable and to be disruptive. Its you that is disruptive by assuming intent when my intent is very clear which, again, is to to have all wikipeida political biographies, follow the same defacto guidelines and precedents set by the primary editors of the Obama biography. Once again bullying is unchecked on wikipeida

Decline reason:

I concur fully with the blocking admin and with Luna below. —  Sandstein  12:42, 5 December 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.

I'm worried this will sound condescending, but I really feel I should remind you that Misplaced Pages is based on cooperative collaboration, which means you need to work with others to achieve consensus regarding the most appropriate article revisions -- this is especially the case on contentious pages being edited and argued over by a large number of users. You certainly do scream a lot, but in all this time you've spent accusing others of being unreasonable and "bullying" you, I'm not sure I've seen any apparent effort on your part to... you know... collaborate? If you want a soapbox, there are plenty of free blog providers out there; if you want to work in a group, I'm sorry to say it's not really showing in your behavior. I'd suggest you take a moment to review Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process so that you can come back at this with a clear head and a renewed commitment to mutual discussion and compromise. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do people change the subject when they don't want to address the original issue? The ISSUE is this, In simple terms... whats good for the goose is good for the gander. In other words, when "Consensus" has been found on one Political Biography, as for example on the Obama biography, that "Consensus" should be applied with EQUAL (see see Websters here ) treatment and policy to the other Wikipeidan political biographies or Misplaced Pages just becomes a partisan political blog/Advocacy which I don't think you want as this will cause problems. I would think you be in favor all poltical bios to be treated "EQUALLY" so as to protect your guys as well as to protect my guys? The bonus for this "EQUAL treatment would be Misplaced Pages being considered as a non-partisan source of information rather then the Sword of the DCCC. Do you want wikipeida to be just some kind of Partisan political blog? SO, what part of "EQUAL" as it would apply to Democrat and Republican office holder's biographies which you have a problem with? OR am I to dumb to understand the word "UNEQUAL".

Also, you should stick with the argument, rather then trying to play "ad homuium" attack on me and others like me, when you don't have any compelling counter-argument to my original premise. I address directly the issue and you attack me personally? What problem you have with "EQUAL" treatment of all Political Biographies base on the "CONSENSUS" of one sets as it sets precedent for ALL Political Biographies.. thats the issue. I think EQUAL consistent only fair in it is concerning REAL people's lifes.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Finely, "Consensus" can be flawed as to finding truth... example, if I can fill a room with enough "Flat Earth" people, who were good debaters, then you will get a peaceful consensus that "the Earth is flat". Consensus is flawed and argument on a subject should be controlled by other means of regulation.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What policy or guideline do you feel has been applied inconsistently, then? I see a lot of heat in your post, but not much substance -- you seem angry, and I get the distinct impression you're more interested in yelling at people than in actually having a discussion, which is pretty much what I was getting at above. It's not so much the criticism that bothers me as the constant, apparently habitual way you seem to lunge at and attack others who disagree with you. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

AGAIN! The issue is this... Since there is not one Negative thing on the Brack Obama biography.. (which though "consensus" was agree upon. THEN I INVOKE natural law and state that ALL poltical biographies should follow the same style and content type as seen and AGREED upon on the Obama bio. OR in more simpler terms... Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. NOW for me presenting this augment I have BEEN BANNED, PERSONALLY ATTACKED, and CHASTISED for asking the simple question that all political biographies be treated "EQUALLY". It confuses me why you cant understand this simple ideal of equal? I see hypocrisy when you and you friends attack me when you will not answer the question I pose? Orangejumpsuit (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down. I will note that you've explained no specific way in which a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline has been applied inconsistently. I have zero interest in debating any vague crusade for truth and justice, but would be very interested to hear any specific complaints or suggestions you might have regarding Misplaced Pages's articles -- for example, if you believe there is specific content which should be included in or removed from a given article, such a suggestion would be a far more helpful basis for discussion than repeatedly SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS about what unfair meanies we all are. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Note, why is there no negative entries on the Obama bio??? I can think off hand dozens of well documented "negatives" which sould have be legitimately added to the Obama bio? (go to yahoo and type "Resko" or "ACORN" or my favorite "OBAMA's birth Certificate" of which NONE of these things are on Obama biography, though the magic of "Consensus"...FINE... but the idea of "EQUAL" is universal, and if consensus has driven the Obama bio to its present state, then the tone and style and type of information added should apply with "EQUAL" amounts to other political bios? What part of "EQUAL" wikipedans don't' understand? Finely as a sign of your good faith I would like you to remove my Scarlet letters and revoke the ban posthumously. This, will show your good faith, and positive action will show your words are real. Orangejumpsuit (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not ensure consistency across articles by a system of "setting precedent in one case and then applying that everywhere else". Instead, our policies and guidelines offer a central set of information to editors about accepted standards - whether that be for sourcing of material, editor conduct, article style, or dispute resolution. If you want to change policy, I recommend that you visit the Village Pump (or one of its subpages) and begin a discussion there.

Another misconception above is the idea that consensus is used to determine "truth". Instead, consensus-based decision-making is used to decide how best to apply policies and guidelines to specific cases, such as content decisions. In any event, truth is not the standard Misplaced Pages judges content by; Verifiability is. No hypothetical roomful of flat-Earthers can override our neutral point of view policy to the extent that they can write "The Earth is flat" as a statement of fact, because the overwhelming majority of reliable sources agree that it is round. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that OJ is well within the boundaries to have posted his comment on the Obama talk page. His point was that the article was unbalanced and false due the fact that negative assessments and criticism have been left out. Regarding the concept of "truth": there is truth and then there is "accuracy". Does the Obama article accurately portray Obama? People look to wiki for an accurate presentation, and one that is unbalanced in one direction or another is not accurate. Millions of people voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin in part because they had reservations about Obama for one reason or another. These "reservations" need to be in the article in order to paint a fair and balanced and accurate article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC0

ps I disagree with the concept that this was WP:Soap. It was legitimate criticism. The block seems intended to silence such criticism. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about soap but it's just plain abusive disruption. He was quite unpleasant on the Obama pages and singled me out for abuse. In his first post back there, he accuses me and Scjessey of whitewashing the article. After doing that he goes to an article about a conservative politician and blanks a paragraph that shows him in a negative light. This could just be an editor with a grudge, and his ignoring what really happened on the Obama article in favor of repeating the claims being made from the sock farm at the time of his last edit could just be a sign of missing the subsequent history. However, the claim that me and Scjessey are holding court on the Obama article and banishing edits and editors who don't suit his political objectives is getting tired and stale. Enough is enough. If an editor has no purpose other than to complain about other editors and mangle articles to score a political point, he is not trying in good faith to improve the encyclopedia.Wikidemon (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice BAN those that should ask the simply question..WHY??? Why should Obama's biography be treated any differently then other Political office holder's biography, in particularly Republican ones??? IS the asking the concept of EQUAL, bothersome to you, or it insults you delicate sense of political bias??? Simply this, the fact that I asked has invoked lies, hate, personal attack and banning, which as shown how shallow and flawed your statements are. Actions not words, your actions and your words is what condemns your argument.

No - it is your bad behavior, violating our policies on civility, assuming good faith, edit warring, disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, etc. I will give you a more formal warning, below. Wikidemon (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning

• This edit, and edit summary, are disruptive. You were warned not to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point, and blocked twice for the behavior. If you continue you will be blocked again, most likely longer term. Wikidemon (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

THREATS OF BANNING NICE... dare question and you banned... nice way to win an arugment when you have nothing to stand on jack?Orangejumpsuit (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing and I am not threatening, I am warning you. If you continue you will be blocked for a while and eventually find yourself unwelcome here at all. If you do not want to be blocked, please review the behavioral policy links above, gives some serious attention to the advice and warnings you have been given, and start editing[REDACTED] to improve the content, not to play tit-for-tat games against politicians and other editors here. Wikidemon (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Final warning

For these two edits after the above warnings. You have two choices. Either revert the Henry Hyde disruption yourself, and you may avoid a ban, or I will report this all to WP:AN/I (or a passing administrator may notice this) and you will almost certainly be banned, and then another editor or I will revert it anyway. It's up to you. Take a deep breath and decide if you want to get along with other editors. Do you wish to edit Misplaced Pages or not? Wikidemon (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

HEY is this what WIKITHUG DOES???? YOUR A THUG, wikidemon. I don't know why a bully boy like you is allow to have any sway. Your words and deeds, right here is poof of my statement and the only answer you can give is " I BAN YOU"? Orangejumpsuit (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I will not ban you. An uninvolved administrator reviewing the situation will make their own decision what to do, which will likely be to block you for some period of time to prevent disruption, during which time you will have a chance to reflect on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. You have responded to all of my warnings with incivility, and show no inclination to consider or change your behavior. I am therefore filing an AN/I report on this, and will give you a courtesy notice when I do. Wikidemon (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

BUT you are Threatening... Threating to ban me... because i disagree with you. For that I am threaten BY YOU to be BANNED, YES??? Now you game is clear and your thuggery is right here, in this very spot for all to see.. "I am warning you" Nice, shall I bow down to your o mighty highness and kiss your ring?Orangejumpsuit (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

When we are Misplaced Pages fringe

I started a new section because of the others were getting personal and I just don't care about your disputes with other editors and just want discuss the broader topic. I do understand where you are emotionally. I have found myself in situations as with this article as well as some but not all other articles where I am outnumbered and outgunned. We put up every argument that makes perfect sense to us but for some strange reason most don’t agree. We are supposed to go by good faith and I make every effort to do so but we would not be human if we do not get suspicious on occasion in these circumstances. I am not naive intentional bias does occur in Misplaced Pages articles. Misplaced Pages editors as in real life use there superior knowledge of the rules to make articles go towered there point of view. Sometimes articles get a POV because despite good intentions editors unintentionally find rules that sustain there view and are not opened minded enough to listen to counterarguments. And sometimes rules are correctly followed with good intentions but because the way the cookie crumbles the article is biased. But the problem is we are not mind readers. To judge people we have no clue about is wrong. So all efforts should go to maintaining good faith and we have to accept that life is unfair and articles will at times carry a blatant point of view.

It is our right and duty to counter the prevailing view vigorously if we do not believe in it. Do not be told an item has been decided you have every right to open it up again. A fact might have changed and perspectives do change. But the time comes when for whatever reason it becomes apparent that “no way no how” will the “bias” be eliminated or that the information that “absolutely must be included” will not. Like I said life is unfair.

Like I said above good faith basically it is a good rule but I also said we are human and editors despite the rules that say we should automatically grant it should attempt to earn it anyway. Comments like “tinfoil hat” “God when will this ever end” will arouse suspicion of intentional bias.

A lot of these s disputes in my view are caused by a basic philosophical dispute over what Misplaced Pages should be. Most editors want to bring a strict 1950’s style encyclopedia online. Other editors want to have Misplaced Pages be a reliably sourced version of the 2008 anything goes world. Some editors write for the rules with the view that readers can go elsewhere to find “tabloid titter tatter” other editors have a as long as it is reliably sourced let the readers judge way of looking at things . I am closer to the latter then most editors and while attempting to follow rules as strictly as I can do understand that there is a common sense clause. Edkollin (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)