User talk:Jwvoiland

Welcome

Hello, Jwvoiland! 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! Bobblehead (rants) 19:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What 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

Barack Obama

I've had to revert your recent edits to Barack Obama because they fail to take into account the consensus found on the talk page. It has been agreed that the additional details concerning the Wright controversy and the book are best suited to the "daughter articles" on those subjects. Please see the extensive talk page archive for more details. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I said - look at the talk page and you will see that the position has overwhelming consensus. Please take the time to check the archive before adding something that has already been added, discussed and deleted with consensus before. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I will repost the items you removed, and if you remove them again I will flag the page for violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Rule.

Well then, you will probably be exposing yourself to ridicule from the hundreds of vastly more experienced editors of that article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil.Jwvoiland (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)jwvoiland

I am being civil. I was trying to save you from embarrassment, but I'm afraid it is already too late. Especially since you have performed a reversion without any justification (or even an edit summary). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources on Obama article

I don't see in either of your sources where a theme from Obama's convention keynote address was inspired by Rev. Wright. Please try to make sure that you comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policies before adding that addition again. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The cites do show this. The NY Times article itself references the sermon given by Rev. Wright in 1988, by the same name, "The Audacity of Hope." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

It is discussed on the second page of the Times article.

I will also add a cite containing the full text of Obama's convention speech on "the audacity of hope." For example, http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2004dnc.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwvoiland (talk • contribs)

The NY Times article does reference a sermon by Rev. Wright called "The Audacity of Hope", but it does not say that the sermon inspired Obama's keynote address. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a no original reasearch policy that prevents us from drawing conclusions like A+B=C, which is what you seem to be doing by saying that Obama's keynote address was inspired by Rev. Wright. A theme in the speech may very well have been inspired by Wright, but it's just not a claim that can be made without an actual source saying that. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bobblehead, I will fix this later with the direct quote from Obama himself: "And, so, many of the sermons that I heard were extraordinarily powerful. One of them, which I have written about, titled "The Audacity of Hope" is one that helped inspire my convention speech." http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/14/acd.01.html Jwvoiland (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)jwvoiland

3RR 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 in a content dispute 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. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my recent reversion

You are completely wrong. As I have already said, you need to look back through the substantial archive and take note of the overwhelming consensus against the stuff you and Andy are adding. I have written more about this on the article talk page, and I would prefer the conversation to be confined to there. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is demonstrably false. Obama made the comment about his grandmother yesterday -- there is no consensus against it in the archive. Nor was there any consensus against anything you reverted the day after Obama gave his speech -- those stories were published that same day.Jwvoiland (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)jwvoiland

You are missing the point. NONE of that section has any place in the BLP. That should be on the campaign page, if anywhere. And like I said, I would prefer to discuss this on the article talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me what point is missing. You said to look through the archive, that the matters you reverted had already been discussed there, and this is false.Jwvoiland (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)jwvoiland

Maybe you just aren't getting the point because you are an inexperienced editor, and perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt on that basis. Please review the entire archive before attempting to use your misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy to argue your case. Needless to say, the entire section is inappropriate. What you add to it is neither here nor there. You are adding it to the wrong article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that the Barack Obama page can only contain glowing reviews of him, and anything that shows him in another light must go on another page. This of course is a clear admission by you that the page violates the NPOV policy. Jwvoiland (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)jwvoiland

Clearly you are ignoring everything I am saying, and you are totally misunderstanding the situation. I am therefore going to start ignoring any of your comments until you learn how to use Wikipedia properly. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Then discuss it. You seem to have forgot that discussion needs to accompany an accusation of NPOV. Grsz 11 17:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is on this page and has been ongoing for days. It is also on the articles's discussion page. Wikipedia policy does not provide for severing all unfavorable information and moving it to a separate article. Jwvoiland (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)jwvoiland

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Whether you're right or wrong doesn't matter, but stop. Wizardman 17:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Italic text== Blocked for edit-warring ==

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 Barack Obama. 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. MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Your reverts include [1], [2], [3], and [4]. Your edits appear to lack consensus, and edit-warring over the insertion of a POV tag on a high-profile featured article without trying to gain consensus, and while apparently misrepresenting others' arguments, is disruptive. Please reconsider your approach and spend a bit more time in discussion on the talk page rather than in edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for placing a NPOV tag on the Barrack Obama page, after one editor continually removed it in violation of Wikipedia policy. The NPOV tag itself states that it should not be removed without consensus in the discussion area. The editor repeatedly removed it without either discussion or consensus. He should have been blocked, not me. In fact, this page should be reviewed for NPOV violation because its editors continue to remove factual information that does not fit their favorable point of view of Barrack Obama, claiming that that information must be moved to a separate article. Finally, the Block states that I "apparently misrepresented others' arguments," but there is no misrepresentation and the block does not even bother to identify or discuss what that "apparent misrepresention" is.

Decline reason:

The rule against edit-warring is firm; you are not allowed to edit-war even if you are certain that you are in the right. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:33, 21 March 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.

In the section above, entitled "Regarding my recent reversion", you claim that other users have refused to allow any critical information in the Barack Obama article ([5]). Despite being corrected on this point ([6]), you continued to claim in your edit summaries and talk-page comments that other editors refused to allow any unfavorable material on the page ([7], [8]). That is a pretty clear and unhelpful misrepresentation of other editors' comments and positions. MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying that edit [9], where Scjessey (of "The reason there are so few criticisms of Obama is that there is so little to criticize" fame) says he's going to ignore Jwvoiland, is a "correction" of Jwvoiland's factual assertion that a claque of pro-Obama editors refuse to allow anything other than pro-Obama spin into is bio is... strange. Andyvphil (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil is cherry-picking quotes out of context to suit his own agenda. I actually said, "have you considered that the reason the article contains little criticism is because there is little to criticize about Obama?" - Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that context changes everything. Not. Andyvphil (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

It has been established that you engaged in sockpuppetry by checkuser, and you are therefore blocked for period of 72 hours. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires.

BLP warning

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Barack Obama. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The above was for this edit[10], which seems to rely solely upon unreliable sources. The edit has since been reverted by Scjessey.[11] On a side note, I already moved this addition[12] to Dreams from My Father.[13] This level of detail isn't necessary for the main article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not place anything libelous. I will of course retract anything that was mistakenly placed. What was it that you believe was ? ~~jwvoiland Please remove this warning tag. Here is video of the statement by Senator Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rtmcefei9EE ~~jwvoiland

Any addition that is critical of a person is potentially libelous, because of this they must be properly sourced. Regardless of what Obama said in the YouTube you linked, you can not use criticism from unreliable sources (blogs) to support this criticism.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)