User talk:300wackerdrive

Hello, 300wackerdrive! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. 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! —EncMstr (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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

October 2008

I left a note on my own talk page, where you had just contributed. But just in case you miss it, please stop edit warring immediately at ACCORN. You are inserting controversial material that does not seem to be sourced. Even if you believe you are right, controversial edits should be discussed on the talk page and consensus found. If you continue you may violate WP:3RR or the policy against edit warring, and your account may be temporarily blocked from editing by an administrator. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my warning, you have violated WP:3RR. I am now in process of filing a report. If you wish to avoid being blocked, please indicate here that you understand the 3RR restriction and will not make further reversions to this article during a 24-hour period. I'm happy to forego making a report if you promise to not edit war. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The moment I saw your warning, I did stop editing the article and instead asked for consensus on the article Talk page. I understand the 3RR requirement and if anyone has violated that requirement, it is LotLE. But I understand it and will obey it. 300wackerdrive (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the note and sorry for any confusion. No report here. Just do be careful. I've advised LotLE not to violate 3RR either. Whether you think you are right or wrong, or the other guy is being disruptive or not, 3RR is a pretty firm rule designed to keep things calm. You'll see that several editors around here have violated it accidentally or through stubbornness and gotten blocked. Best to keep a clean record so nobody thinks of you as an edit warrior. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaak![1] I'm not going to file a report because I said I would not, but I think you've jumped the gun on announcing consensus. There are still a few who oppose, and any of them and/or a neutral bystander might ding you for WP:3RR. I strongly suggest you revert yourself and sit tight for a while. If it's clear there is consensus I or someone else who is not at 3RR can make the change. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that we have consensus. You support, I support, WB supports. LotLE opposes, no surprise, but one opposition vote does not cancel consensus. GoodDamon has "sarcastically supported" an entirely different edit in the lead, but said not a thing about the edit in the "Voter registration" section. Guyzero doesn't support but he hasn't said that he supports LotLE either. I see three votes to one, and two abstentions. That's consensus. 300wackerdrive (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would still be careful. GoodDamon's "sarcastic" is probably an indication of opposition. And even if there is consensus in the end, as I said, anyone who opposes can say that you're still edit warring unless it's a very clear case. Just some friendly advice to try to avoid the wrath of administrative blocking. Wikidemon (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus isn't the same as voting. Usually unique Wikipedia policies are counted. See WP:CONSENSUS. —EncMstr (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it clear that I do not support the changes to the section heading and order per NPOV. Please self-revert those changes, I don't see consensus. thank you --guyzero | talk 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I filed a 3RR report here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:300wackerdrive_reported_by_guyzero_.7C_talk_.28Result:_.29. --guyzero | talk 22:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 (2nd nomination) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Good Damon 00:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR again

You have reverted three times today on ACORN and risk a second WP:3RR block if you continue. Further, you may also be blocked for edit warring so soon over the very same material that just got you a 3RR block. Please stop being so contentious, and also stop making personal attacks on the other editors on the page. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Barack Obama

This is a POV fork of someone who is not yet a head of state. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Criticism of Barack Obama

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Criticism of Barack Obama, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Criticism of Barack Obama

A tag has been placed on Criticism of Barack Obama requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. guyzero | talk 06:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks in the article Criticism of Barack Obama

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Criticism of Barack Obama. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. McWomble (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit-warring again

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seek consensus before seeking unilateral page protection

Your effort to have the Acorn article page protected (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection) one minute after you made a contentious, long-disputed edit, was not appreciated. I opposed your request. A courtesy note to involved editors would also be nice. Please don't do it again.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 AN/I

You have been mentioned in a new AN/I report here: [2]. Brothejr (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tan | 39 17:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

300wackerdrive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

At the time of the block, I was aware that my edit to the page had been reverted by GoodDamon. I was not edit warring, as proven by my response on his talk page. Rather than revert him, I was attempting to courteously work within constraints on WP:SYNTH and WP:WEIGHT. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research. I will continue to attempt to work within these constraints, discuss on Talk pages and build consensus. 300wackerdrive (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your edit to GoodDamon's talk page does not suggest that you are courteously working on anything. When you return to editing, less snarkiness will be helpful. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

See edit here. 300wackerdrive (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

300wackerdrive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would appreciate it if my block would be removed today. It expires tomorrow anyway. I have plenty of time today to work on multiple articles to refute the "SPA" allegation. I promise that I will be cooperative and work well with others. Tomorrow, and for the rest of the work week, I will have very, very little time to work on articles.

Decline reason:

Because the expiration date of your block does not work well with your schedule is not a valid reason for a unblock — Tiptoety ^talk 05:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 have also noticed that Workerbee has asked, on his User Talk page, for anyone watchlisting his page to "transclude" his Strong support for the currently proposed edit to the Voter Registration section on ACORN. If anyone is also watchlisting this page, please also transclude my Strong support for that proposed edit. Allow me to thank you in advance. 300wackerdrive (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of sources

Here's what your source said:-

The remainder are registered voters who were changing their address and roughly 400,000 that were rejected by election officials for a variety of reasons, including duplicate registrations, incomplete forms and fraudulent submissions from low-paid field workers trying to please their supervisors.

Here's what you said:-

the remainder include registered voters who were changing their addresses, and about 400,000 that were rejected by election officials as fraudulent, incomplete or duplicate forms.

This re-arrangement of what the source said - moving fraud from least significant to most significant of the reasons listed - leaves a very bad taste in the mouth, considered in conjunction with your history of disruptive editing. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires us to report what our sources say fairly and without bias. Please do so in future. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such rearrangement of wording is necessary to avoid plagiarism charges. 300wackerdrive (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. It was not my intention to make the word "fraudulent" any more or less prominent in that rearrangement. But I think you'll agree that voter registration fraud by ACORN employees has become very notable. Since you're watching this page, how long will I be required to display your garbage (false accusation of sockpuppetry) on my homepage? 300wackerdrive (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant guidelines to the subject of plagiarism and copyright violation can be found at WP:Plagiarism and WP:Copyright violation. I don't think you'll find instructions to rearrange a couple of words, but you never know. Going forward, if you're prepared to take care, when paraphrasing or summarising your sources, not to change their emphasis or meaning, I think we can call this matter resolved.

As for the sockpuppet notice, let's set aside, for the time being, the question of whose garbage it is. The short answer is that the notice should remain until a consensus emerges, or way or the other. It doesn't help that a checkuser came back with an Inconclusive result. What we have to go on right now is that, to date, several editors have expressed the opinion that this account and User:WorkerBee74 are operated by the same editor. To my knowledge, no one has stated a contrary opinion. Hence removal of the SSP notice does not seem appropriate at this time. I understand if you want a second opinion on this, and if you want, I can raise the matter at the admins' noticeboard. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't move other editors comments!

You try moving my comment(s) one more time (out off line) and you'll find yourself at the appropriate place for "misleading moves", vandalizing, etc!--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually appreciate it if you didn't move my comments on article talk pages either. Feel free to do whatever you want on your own talk page. Thanks, Digital ^Ninja 17:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New AN/I report

You are mentioned in an AN/I report here. This is a courtesy notice. --Good Damon 19:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

indefinite block

I have placed an indefinite block on this account, because the discussion here indicates that this account is a sockpuppet of the banned user User:BryanFromPalatine. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]