→Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:scjessey, User:Unitanode, User:Sceptre reported by User:Jzyehoshua (Result: reporting user warned): blocking template - sorry this is late |
→Unproductive editing at Talk:Barack Obama: new section |
||
Line 186:
You reverted twice after my warning above, so I'm afraid I had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Jzyehoshua_reported_by_Scjessey_.28talk.29_.28Result:_.29 no choice]. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
:He was blocked before you posted. I was about to submit the same report. ~ [[User:DC|DC]] ([[User talk:DC|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/DC|Edits]]) 15:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
== Unproductive editing at [[Talk:Barack Obama]] ==
Your edits to that talkpage have continued to be [[WP:TE|tendentious]] and [[WP:DE|disruptive]]. You are treating the talkpage as a [[WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND|battleground]] rather than as a place to arrive at [[WP:consensus|consensus]] for improvements to the article [[Barack Obama]]. In light of [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation]] and the discussion at [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement#User:Jzyehoshua]], I am [[WP:BAN|banning]] you from [[Talk:Barack Obama]], [[Barack Obama]], and closely related articles and talkpages for a period of one month. Please do not make any edits concerning these issues during this time. The procedure for appealing this ban is detailed at [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation]]. I look forward to your productive contributions to that family of articles on or after February third. - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 21:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 21:39, 2 January 2010
Welcome!
Hello, Jzyehoshua, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Wikimachine 15:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Non-neutral POV
Please read the edit notice at the top of the edit page for Barack Obama. You've now reinserted material that was specifically removed with request to go to Talk:Barack Obama to discuss potential addition of the material. As the article is highly watched and under probation, further insertion of the same or similar material will earn you a block very quickly. Frank | talk 21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Immaterial comments were removed for spam purposes. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith, which means don't accuse fellow editors of being spammers when that's complete bullshit. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I removed your comment for language and I removed GoodDay's comment because they told me my comment had been reverted and then insulted me when I asked them on their page why it had been reverted. It's my page and I don't particularly like or tolerate profanity. I am all for freedom of discussion and speech - I just don't like it when that speech is used in an inappropriate manner. Tolerance of views is one thing - tolerance of how those views are stated is another. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith, which means don't accuse fellow editors of being spammers when that's complete bullshit. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Immaterial comments were removed for spam purposes. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- I might as well say this here - sorry to take so long to make any content proposals. I haven't forgotten, I'm just thinking through the best way to follow through. I'm kind of busy today as well. If you feel impatient please feel free to give me a little nudge on my talk page. Cheers, and happy holidays. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's fine, you're the only person at the moment actually addressing the edits at all. Users that even remain civil, like you, Frank, and Hoary I take note of. I appreciate it, and just wanted to make a new section addressing the subject of introduction controversies specifically so it didn't get piled back and overlooked. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, just for the record, that's why I take longer in responding to you. Users that respond civilly I am much more thoughtful and hesitant in replying to than to those that respond rudely, because it's easier to point out all their logical fallacies and argumentative mistakes, which comes very easily to me, than to carry on a conversation with someone. That's because in one case I don't have to concern myself with their reaction since they're just looking for a fight (plus I don't really care what their reaction is), and in the other case, I do. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's fine, you're the only person at the moment actually addressing the edits at all. Users that even remain civil, like you, Frank, and Hoary I take note of. I appreciate it, and just wanted to make a new section addressing the subject of introduction controversies specifically so it didn't get piled back and overlooked. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Our policy on biographies of living persons is non-negotiable and applies in all namespaces, including talk pages. Please rephrase your comments in a way that read rather less like a wingnut diatribe. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Like already pointed out to you, the WP:BLP policy is essential here and applies even to talk pages. You need not include the entire (inappropriate) text on the talk page, and continuing to do so will only be labeled as disruptive. Grsz11 05:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you think my discussion comments violated WP:BLP policy, please state how so. WP:BLP policy states only that assertions must be well-sourced by external accredited organizations or individuals, not that they avoid controversy or criticism. I went out of my way to provide those sources and expect those that criticize me of violating guidelines to do me the courtesy of taking at least some time, in contrast to the time I spent providing those sources, in stating exactly what it is that they disagree with. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Further, I do not care what opinions others have about the facts I have provided. As I quoted from the WP:BLP rules on the Obama talk page, "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."
- Whether you think this is a 'wingnut diatribe' is beside the point. Even if Obama were to hypothetically hate it and wished everyone so much as considering it were shipped off to fight in Afghanistan it would be beside the point. According to the guidelines, all that matters is whether it is well-documented, and in that regards, I went out of my way to provide the sources. If you disagree with the sources, or the validity thereof, that is another matter, and one I will make sure to address. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Your latest comments on Talk:Barack Obama are yet another gross violation of WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Then surely you can cite one example of how and clearly enumerate your position better than that. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I offer my own apologies in lieu of those of the offending party
I just wanted to say that I personally find pointed disregard for the health and well-being of a living thing of any age or circumstance to be repugnant, which is why I personally support a ban on partial-birth abortion, recognize that family planning, sex education and contraception are absolutely essential to limit the number of abortions, and support single-payer health care for every man, woman and child. To ban abortion on the one hand, but to absolve ourselves as a society of caring for the essential needs of those people who are born into this world is a contradiction I cannot accept. Two wrongs do not make a right, but then, in this world, we have a great deal more than two wrongs no matter what we do.
I found Alan Keyes' official public statement that Jesus wouldn't vote for Barack Obama to be shockingly absurd and cynically manipulative, as Jesus surely wouldn't have voted for Keyes either, and it seemed to be the epitome of taking the name of the Lord in vain. We live in a world where neither candidate is ever truly going to live and legislate in a perfectly Christian manner. That doesn't mean we idolize either candidate, but neither does it mean we live in a cacophony of bloodcurdling diatribes over every issue creating a dissonance that makes it impossible to live with or have a modicum of respect for anyone or anything. You're familiar with the expression "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good," and I would add "we should not be the enemies of the imperfect," because there is nothing but imperfection in this world. Frankly, I wonder if the point of this life would be moot if everybody did live in a perfectly Christian manner. Reading your user page as I have only done just now makes me hope that my responses at Talk:Barack Obama were not personally offensive to you, and I did acknowledge there that I respect your position. I maintain that this edit fails weight, sourcing, context and other BLP issues and this doesn't mitigate any editorial point I have made. Wikipedia is not the place for activism
After working on the above, I experienced an edit conflict and took the liberty of deleting the other addition to your page as it is unacceptable Wikipedia behavior. I apologize for any religious intolerance that is and may be expressed here; while every editor has the right to his own opinions, it is inappropriate for someone to arrive here without any previous interaction with you to say such a thing. Intolerance is as repugnant when it is directed toward the religious community from the outside as it is when it is directed from inside the religious community to others.
I would like you to know that it is my deeply sincere wish that you continue to travel the path toward truth and love that you relate on your user page, something I was moved to read, and that you have all the guidance, support and rewards I hope for us all along the way on our respective paths. Abrazame (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, I just saw this comment of yours. Sorry for taking so long to respond. I will agree with you that some of Keyes' comments are a bit insensitive and vitriolic, to put it mildly. I hardly excuse all of Keyes' behaviors or his words, nor do I try to idolize the man. I simply overlook it to some extent, as I admire his candidness when compared to the typical politician who does not even state what they believe. One thing I dislike about Obama is that he says one thing and does another, or tells different parties different things. He tries to appease when he is acting and voting very radically, and I do not like the dishonesty. Keyes on the other hand is an unapologetic radical, and I recognize it, but at least like the aspect of honesty in the man's character - even if he puts his foot in his mouth on occasion.
- I also accept your apology. I have a tendency to get overly defensive when there are a lot of fallacies and attacks flying, and it wasn't all just directed at you, but some of the other users using the tactics made me more defensive than I was initially. At any rate, I look forward to a better understanding between us, and hope later comments won't clash as much as they did already. Not that I mind disagreement, I just hope to avoid it becoming personal, rather than constructive, that's all. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Please, please don't make the mistakes that I made!
I see that you have a strong interest in adding criticism of Barack Obama to wikipedia, even though there is a strong consensus against your edits. I used to do that a lot, and I also did so against consensus. I have been topic banned and blocked multiple times - and it is not fun. I mean, it is not fun at all. It really sucks. I urge you to find less controversial parts of the encyclopedia to edit. Please do not follow the path down the dark side and get your self topic banned or blocked. Good luck! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the concern and for the suggestion, but I do not believe in shying away from that which is most important simply due to opposition. Indeed, I previously stopped participating in Wikipedia for a time when I suspected the community was so liberally biased as to unfairly discriminate against opposing views, apart from objectivity and guidelines. If Wikipedia were to disallow opposing views from being presented, why would I want to participate at all? I have participated in editing less controversial parts of Wikipedia before - however, I stopped because I thought for a while that Wikipedia would discriminately disallow objective examination of controversial criticisms of liberal politicians when it does not do so for conservatives. My participation in the future in Wikipedia will depend only on the extent to which I believe it to be a good and honest community for providing unbiased content. I would definitely not help further a medium I did not believe in, otherwise. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- We have a lot in common! Grundle2600 (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- I saw while browsing you'd been involved in an arbitration dispute. I would imagine it might be similar to this one, and a verdict was reached prematurely before full examination could be done? I noticed one admin seemed skeptical about the verdict.[[1]] I have already taken this discussion into Mediation myself.[[2]] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've been the subject of several such cases. Prior to the current one that you just cited, I was topic banned from all articles that relate to U.S. politics and U.S. politicians. Now in this current case, I have agreed to avoid editing all such articles from all other countries too. I love editing wikipedia, and I don't want to get blocked from all articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- I saw while browsing you'd been involved in an arbitration dispute. I would imagine it might be similar to this one, and a verdict was reached prematurely before full examination could be done? I noticed one admin seemed skeptical about the verdict.[[1]] I have already taken this discussion into Mediation myself.[[2]] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
December 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--John (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I clicked on the new section tab and for whatever reason it created a new page, perhaps due to a large page size already? I was just trying to reverse it myself. I only wanted to create a new section, not a new page, and had used the feature before without issue. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I just switched to the Beta yesterday and this is just the 2nd time I tried using that New section tab with it. Could this be a glitch? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Word to the wise
An edit summary like this one[3] will hurt your case. Threats to edit war are not going to go down very well, particularly given that the Obama article is on probation (you can see the discussion at the top of the talk page). I've stayed a little removed from the issue for a little while but I still think that if everyone can cool down a little there can be a more productive discussion. Cheers.... - Wikidemon (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Alright. I will give it a few more days after creating a section asking anyone to provide proof against the edit having a NPOV, and if no proof can be provided on the talk page, will make the edits once more. I will create the section soon to make crystal clear whether or not there is proof about the NPOV accusation. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. Keep in mind that individual editor are often POV - they're supposed to check that at the door but human nature is what it is. The key thing is that the resulting article is NPOV. If we can achieve that, it's not so important what's in people's hearts of hearts. Happy holidays, if that's what you're into.... - Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- True, true. And not necessarily big on holidays, as I suspect they're an excuse for people to act 1 day a year the way they should all the time, but sure, Happy Holidays! :) --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. Keep in mind that individual editor are often POV - they're supposed to check that at the door but human nature is what it is. The key thing is that the resulting article is NPOV. If we can achieve that, it's not so important what's in people's hearts of hearts. Happy holidays, if that's what you're into.... - Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
For your attention
You are being discussed at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement#User:Jzyehoshua
ANI
You are being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Isn.27t_the_Barack_Obama_article_on_a_one-revert_lockdown.3F. Woogee (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Removing other people's comments
This edit was entirely inappropriate. Woogee (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe it was. I will apologize for seeing associations where none may have been. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Block and unblock
I would note that I blocked this account for 24 hours, and then immediately unblocked as soon as I read Wikidemon's comments per here. While I apologise for acting so hastily, I would comment that you might take this as an example to better temper your edit summaries and tone of discussion in sensitive matters. Being unable to edit will seriously compromise your ability in trying to have your preferred content included in the article. So, sorry, but try and be more... careful in your choice of comment in future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello
Hello, while I'm semi retired as I take care of a personal project that is taking more of my time, I do occasionally come back and take a peek at what is going on here in Wikipedia. I've been watching your posts of the Talk:Barack Obama page and have seen your contributions. I can see that there is a lot of potential to really help Wikipedia grow. However, I've also noticed a couple habits that might impede you're being able to help the project and give you a public image you may not want. I also want these suggestions to be able to help you navigate the Barack Obama page a little bit better and cause/see less drama. These are only suggestions take 'em or ignore them if you want:
- Understand your own biases and passions. When editing neutrally, you need to understand your own biases and passions and try to keep them from ruling you. It is hard, I know, but if you know what you lean towards, you can make sure you don't edit that way. (One way I do, is sometimes I just won't edit or comment on an article that I might feel passionately for or against.)
- Understand where others are coming from. If someone disagrees with you, fully understand where they are coming from. Do their arguments make a valid point? Did they raise a valid reason?
- If it seems that you are the only one tooting that trumpet, and the majority of the community does not agree with you, then maybe it's time to back off on that issue.
- If you find yourself starting to call others names or groups of editors names, then that also might be a sign to back away from the issue.
- If you can, avoided walls of text. Try to say what you mean in a succinct and brief manner. Editors will be more likely to read what you say when you say it with as few words as possible. If you really need to delve deeply and explain a subject, maybe use a collapsed box around it, and the editors will be more likely to read the extra information at their own leisure.
- Also, take a couple hours and delve deeply into the archives of the pages. See what has been brought up, see what reoccurring arguments that have been brought up over and over again, and see why the community has grown more pissed over certain things. (I could do in depth, but I want to be brief.)
- Finally, be interested in other things then just Barack Obama and politics in general. Work on other non-political articles as a way to take a breath and relax a bit.
You seem like a good editor and can contribute a lot to the project and as I said these are just some helpful suggestions. Sincerely, Brothejr (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. I am deliberately holding off on editing other Wikipedia articles however to see what kind of community Wikipedia is. I don't want to get involved in other pages until I see how Wikipedia will handle this current situation.
- I do recognize that I have been going overboard, and treating others the way they treat me; getting defensive and acting in a way I don't approve of. Therefore, I am going to stop trying to defend my reputation and let others think what they want about me.
- I still think that the Obama article is lacking in critical historical factors surrounding him, and that objectively the partial birth abortion issue has been a major one during his career. It's tough to walk a line between not acting vengeful towards those who are editing out of bias, and still stick up for necessary changes to an article. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well at least he isn't a sockpuppet. --Misortie (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, I'm no sockpuppet. I have no desire to hide behind another account, although I noticed I did have some additional edits in the past for my IP address itself (just since Wikipedia lets you edit without being logged in, and if you're idle on your computer while making an edit you get logged out). --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Tripe
Do take the time to look up tripe in a dictionary. I've linked the term to the wiktionary, and there I would direct your attention to definition number 3. You may also wish to view Tripe (disambiguation), where you will find it says "It may also be used metaphorically to refer to something discardable or of little worth." I understand that to you, Obama's alleged support of infanticide is important, but the consensus at the Obama article talk page is that you are the only one who thinks so. The rest of us think it tripe. Warmest regards, and May you be Touched by His Noodly Appendage. --averagejoe (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Edit war
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk: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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Scjessey (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just stopped by to place the same warning. You may disagree with how the discussion is going at Talk:Barack Obama, but adding an edit war to the mix isn't going to help you or the article. Frank | talk 21:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
More on your Obama editing
In addition to my reply at User talk:Wikipedian2, please consider this series of edits at WP:AN/EW that really don't represent the pinnacle of WP:AGF either, in my opinion. In your recent editing regarding Obama, I agree I've seen some short and, frankly, less-than-courteous replies to you. I'm not defending those replies, but I will say this: I have seen precious little in the way of calls for you to be blocked or topic banned, and the little I've seen has not gained any traction. However, you've spent a fair amount of time accusing people of colluding, especially with User:scjessey as a "leader", among other things we don't need to rehash.
You have some good advice earlier on this talk page; in addition, whether anyone else has said it or not, I'd suggest you remember that it's just a web site. And, it has 6,841,637 articles to edit; many need help. Frank | talk 21:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- In addition, regarding this edit which I presume was yours, accidentally logged out, the use of the term sinister tactic is also not going to help your case. Nobody is using sinister tactics; what's going on is the conversations are being closed because nothing new is being added to them.
- At the time the discussion was closed, perhaps half a dozen different users, yourself included, had all replied to the thread in question. It was very much active. There were several users doing nothing constructive but calling for me to be banned or blocked, and the discussion closed. DD2K, scjessey, Guy, Dayewalker, averagejoe. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure which thread you're referring to; I've closed at least three myself. The issue is that no new ground is being covered. Sometimes it's necessary to just close it and move on, especially when consensus is clear. I know you don't agree - I've been reading almost every word you've added - but the reality is that the edits you have so far tried to make to Barack Obama have not only failed to achieve consensus, but have also developed significant consensus against them. Adding several hundred kilobytes more text to the talk page doesn't appear destined to change that, since nothing new is being added, and there are accusations being thrown (from both sides) that are clouding the chance of having reasonable discussion. That's my reason for closing threads (if they weren't already a week or more old). I can't speak for others. Frank | talk 23:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm referring to the Neutral Point of View thread that scjessey, Sceptre, and Unitanode worked together to close. What established consensus there has been so far has only been to the extent of excluding discussion for the purposes of unfairly disallowing controversy on a notable Wikipedia page. In the Neutral Point of View discussion right before it was closed, you and others were making it plain you had no good reason for your Consensus - you kept avoiding the issue of why there was consensus or why there was a lack of significant controversy. That was why the users had to move against me right then, they had nothing left they could do to stop that from becoming plain to the Wikipedia community and had to stop the discussion right then. Whether you were a part of that or not, I don't know. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- There's a difference between "no consensus to include" and "consensus to exclude". The information you've been trying to add to Barack Obama falls into the latter category. You may not see it, but when you repeatedly try to get agreement for an edit, and all or almost all of the others in the discussion are explicitly telling you the edit isn't appropriate, that's consensus against the edit. The thread wasn't closed because there was "no good reason" - it was closed because consensus against your edit had been established. Frank | talk 00:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know, that last part of the conversation before it got closed looked pretty clear that there was no reason for the consensus. The conversation was as follows:
So in summary, Frank and Sceptre don't think it has enough international criticism, scjessey and Tarc deny that it's a significant controversy (although how they define significant controversy in such a way that this doesn't measure up I'm not yet sure), and your primary objection seems to be that it's "tripe", a term you've now used 4 times. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think a better summary would be: The community consensus demonstrated here is that this material does not belong in this article. Frank | talk 18:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- And why did that Consensus occur, Frank? In your own summary? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- That consensus occurred because a significant number of editors are saying the same thing. Frank | talk 18:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- And what is that same thing? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- As I stated in my summary: This material does not belong in this article. (Furthermore, it's in several other articles, where it is more relevant to the topic(s) being discussed in those articles. But that is a secondary point; the main point here is that it doesn't belong here.) Frank | talk 18:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- And why was it decided the material didn't belong in this article? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- As I stated in my summary: This material does not belong in this article. (Furthermore, it's in several other articles, where it is more relevant to the topic(s) being discussed in those articles. But that is a secondary point; the main point here is that it doesn't belong here.) Frank | talk 18:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- And what is that same thing? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- That consensus occurred because a significant number of editors are saying the same thing. Frank | talk 18:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- And why did that Consensus occur, Frank? In your own summary? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- (after ec) - A more accurate summary would be this: There is overwhelming consensus that this isn't a significant controversy. In fact, there is overwhelming consensus that this isn't any kind of controversy at all. I would agree that in the tiny universe of extreme anti-abortionists it is probably a "significant controversy", but nowhere else. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- And why was it decided this wasn't a significant controversy? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody "decided" anything. Nobody but you had even heard of this alleged controversy, as far as I can tell. Why am I wasting my time responding? I'm going to go and empty the dishwasher. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- But didn't the 50+ sources I provided and the numerous other articles on Wikipedia referencing the controversy show that at least here in the United States it has been a significant controversy? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody "decided" anything. Nobody but you had even heard of this alleged controversy, as far as I can tell. Why am I wasting my time responding? I'm going to go and empty the dishwasher. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- And why was it decided this wasn't a significant controversy? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
That looked pretty clear to me. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- You are saying that because you disagree with the conclusion. There is clear consensus against the changes you are attempting; there are numerous indications of it on Talk:Barack Obama. As I've suggested before and will suggest again: please read WP:TEND. Frank | talk 13:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm saying it because I don't think the conclusion occurred because of any disagreement with the guidelines themselves, but "just 'cause". The conversation in question showed that, or you and scjessey wouldn't have put on that performance of subject dodging. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I have left some comments for you at the bottom of the abovelinked thread. Please take heed and try to edit more collaboratively in future. Having only examined your edits for the past two days, you look to be headed for a topic ban. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you don't mind my asking, you think the thread closing (Neutral Point of View) was appropriate then? There was plenty of sourcing and discussion was attempting to be constructive. Many of the recent comments being made were refusing to provide reasons for consensus in opposing the edits. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Are you seriously reopening this again, this time with no edit summary whatsoever for an explanation, a day after being warned about it? Tarc (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I already discussed it in depth by now on the talk page. Let those who wish to justify the closing of it do so, for I have yet to see justification for it. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- One revert attempt is enough for me, but I'm sure it won't stay open for long; you were already warned by an admin to knock it off and were reminded about consensus, which you have spectacularly failed to achieve thus far. IMO I think with today's antics you have probably pissed away your last chance to edit collaboratively in this topic area, but that's obviously not my call to make. Good luck. :| Tarc (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I already discussed it in depth by now on the talk page. Let those who wish to justify the closing of it do so, for I have yet to see justification for it. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Are you seriously reopening this again, this time with no edit summary whatsoever for an explanation, a day after being warned about it? Tarc (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I prefer just to ignore threads that are clearly going nowhere, but yes, hatnoting a discussion that is only being pursued by one editor past the point where a valid consensus has formed is perfectly appropriate. You may wish to consider advice from the WP:Talk page guidelines: Keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion. I have myself no opinion on the sources presented or the issue discussed, only that your editing is interfering with productive discussion of improvements to that article. You have now disruptively re-opened that thread three times following my warning above and ignoring the pleas of your fellow editors. You are edit warring, and I have blocked you from editing for one day. Please when this expires seek compromise and consensus. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring. Again.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk: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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. I've left you a message after the thread, which I seriously recommend you read and take to heart. You are going to find yourself indefinitely blocked if you continue down this road. Scjessey (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Courtesy warning
You reverted twice after my warning above, so I'm afraid I had no choice. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- He was blocked before you posted. I was about to submit the same report. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 15:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Unproductive editing at Talk:Barack Obama
Your edits to that talkpage have continued to be tendentious and disruptive. You are treating the talkpage as a battleground rather than as a place to arrive at consensus for improvements to the article Barack Obama. In light of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation and the discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement#User:Jzyehoshua, I am banning you from Talk:Barack Obama, Barack Obama, and closely related articles and talkpages for a period of one month. Please do not make any edits concerning these issues during this time. The procedure for appealing this ban is detailed at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation. I look forward to your productive contributions to that family of articles on or after February third. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)