Eclectix

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Barack Obama, is on article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. Bigbluefish (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Barak Obama

You are just now learning what many of us have learned already. Wikipedia has a liberal bias. I hope that the recent discussions at the Talk:Barak Obama page have not discouraged you from editing though. I learned a long time ago that the Obama page has what I like to call "protectors". Editors who "protect" the page from any semblance of balance. Only favorable information is allowed, and anything that is considered unfavorable is dismissed. I realize that you are somewhat new to the Obama page, so I just wanted to warn you before you get too involved. Many editors have tried to balance the Obama page with real citable facts, but have been shunned away just as you were. Don't take it personal. Many of those who commented on the thread have heard these discussions before. That is why some of them get "snippy", because they are tired of hearing the same old stuff. I now only occasionally comment on the Obama discussions, but I no longer try to begin discussions. Most of the other editors know who I am and know where I stand. I am glad that you brought up the Arthur comparison. I wanted to bring it up myself weeks ago, but decided to wait until it was brought up by someone new. At any rate, you had your say, and they cannot take that away from you. The discussion, although archived, is saved in the central database and can be retrieved at any time, but don't beat a dead horse, because I have seen many editors get banned from editing just because they continued arguing the same points over and over again. They just haven't been able to get me yet, because I play by the rules of wikipedia. I suggest you do the same, and try not to ruffle too many feathers over at the Obama talk page. Just know that you have a friend in me and you can ask my advice on any subject. I hope that you stay with wikipedia and decide to continue to contribute. I suggest finding some less controversial article to improve and go from there. The Obama article will stay "protected" for now, no matter what we do or say. Good luck and happy editing--Jojhutton (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I also forgot to let you know that it is usually discouraged to add information to archived threads. Even when you don't agree with the archiving.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I referred not just to the Chester Arthur main page but also (a bit later) to Jackson main Wiki page as well, for roughly the same reason. My previous edit attempt was 3 years ago to a butterfly description, but I am shocked at the disparaging, rude, obscene but apparently acceptable comments aimed at me for daring to suggest politely in a talk page that the Obama main page be edited and politely giving reasons, as a relatively inexperienced newbie. If readers are not alerted to controversy, even controversy recognized in the "secondary sources," then that is a disservice to the readers. If readers are being fed information that is recognized by secondary sources as unverifiable, that is also a disservice to readers. If policies are applied unevenly to different biographies, that is also a disservice to readers. If there are not even any pointers to controversial side issues from major issues, that is also a disservice to readers. That is just common sense, but the rules here are highly convoluted and seem invoked arbitrarily. If we can't have a civil discussion of suggested changes in the Obama Talk section, as it is advertised for that purpose, where can we have it? It is now become a discussion of me, on my page, instead of where it should be discussed, on the Obama talk page. The editors should spend more time enforcing their civility of their own moderators and less time beating up people coming to Wiki in good faith with honest suggestions. I am no expert in Wiki policy but it evidently requires superhuman mastery of procedure just to get a suggestion in good faith with new information even discussed. Now it seems there are rules against asking for discussions about discussions about discussions. At some point Wiki needs to recognize that its procedures are being misused to censor legitimate points of view, and this is a case in point. Eclectix (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Also are you implying that I somewhere somehow encouraged adding information to archived threads? That was never my intent and I do not know where I gave that impression, if I did give it. Eclectix (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that you may have inadvertanly added a comment on an archived thread. [1]. No big deal, I just wanted to give you a heads up, since you are somewhat new and all.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I was harsh in my condemnation of the comments you left on my talkpage. Perhaps I read to much into the comments. I left a suggestion for you at the Talkpage at barack Obama. It has occurred to me that you might not have followed my earlier advice because you did not have a link to follow. I have just now become aware that you are a rather new editor. Sorry to have bitten you. Please check out the link, you will find that there are a lot of editors that go there with questions just like yours, and they get answers thath they can return to discussions with that give them a leg to stand on. The Barack Obama article is a hard one to edit here. It has made me angry at times. It does all of us. If there is something I can help you with, let me know.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Barack Obama

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Ward3001 (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The comments left by this user do not fall under the WP:Canvassing code, since this user was not trying to sway a vote or discussion.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. "deletion without (IMHO) justification. Thanks for any support" on your page and "I'm absolutely certain you know what it is like to have a justified but minority viewpoint.) Thanks for any explicit support" on another user's page is clearly not neutral and violation of policy. Ward3001 (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Then tell me, what was this user trying to sway? Was it a discussion? A vote? None of the above? You need to stop using foul language, especially on other users talk pages.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

He is trying to sway an RfC. Let me repeat that: an RfC. And that is forbidden. Take the time to read the messages. Take the time to see that he's talking about an RfC. That's a community debate. Users can notify others in a neutral manner about an RfC, but they cannot do so from a specific point of view. And tell me how many other users' foul language you have jumped on. Did you jump on a conservative (who in your imagined "liberal bias" that I have) I have argued with on the Obama talk page, when that user used the word "fuck" about a dozen times? Did you chastise that user? Or is it just those of us with your imagined "liberal bias" who cannot use an off-color word from time to time. Hold on, let me check ... nope, not one word of criticisim for all those uses of "fuck". Ward3001 (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The original and primary concern is and remains the accuracy of the information in the main Obama page. I attempted to address it in Obama:Talk but it was suddenly and summarily "hidden" after my discussion in good faith with multiple constructive suggestions and multiple new sources was on the receiving end of many uncivil negative and non-responsive comments. I did absolutely nothing in secret-- it is all in the open, except for the stuff that got suddenly and arbitrarily hidden in Obama:Talk. There is nothing Wiki can do to prevent out of band collusion between parties in any case, so the policy you cite is ultimately less than effective for determined parties. With all due respect, you are whacking a weed and missing the forest in need of trimming by complaining about this. I thought Wiki was all about being open and welcoming to newbies in good faith with civility. Apparently that is demonstrably lost in a maze of obscure parliamentary points of order such as this. Eclectix (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• "it is all in the open": Canvassing is always in the open because every edit can be viewed by anoyone. It's still against policy.

And I have not taken issue with the policy aspect. Eclectix (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "There is nothing Wiki can do to prevent out of band collusion between parties in any case, so the policy you cite is ultimately less than effective for determined parties": On Wikipedia, that's know as meatpuppetry. Someone who commits that egregious act can get permanently banned from Wikipedia. You may or may not get caught doing it, but thanks for letting us know that you would resort to that tactic,

That's egregiously mistaken. Nowhere do I suggest I would do that. There is a difference between noting what is possible and doing it. Apparently the distinction has been lost to you. Let the record show that. Eclectix (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

as it will always be here as evidence in your talk page history for admins to consider in applying sanctions.

not if they apply common sense. Why would a person herald the commission of an offense by noting in public its possibility? That makes no sense. What this does however is show you are prone to making warrantless unfounded charges that you cannot back up, and you violate the policy of being welcoming to newbies by being uncivil on my talk page (you introduced two swear words above). That seems to me a deliberate violation of civility policy right here. Maybe the admins will see that if and when you or anyone else sends them to come looking. People who throw stones should not do so from glass houses. Eclectix (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "With all due respect, you are whacking a weed and missing the forest in need of trimming by complaining about this": And with all due respect, sometimes a nasty weed in the form of blatant policy violation needs a whack.

Then let them lack the blatant and deliberate disregard of civility policy to begin with. As I have explained elsewhere, the RFC was in request to other violations. I am not seeing anyone else punished for those, yet you are implying that I will be sanctioned for a tertiary inadertent minor offense. Is someone putting the cart before the horse?? Eclectix (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "I thought Wiki was all about being open and welcoming to newbies": It's also about fair editing and not trying to vote-stack a community discussion by canvassing.

Sure, see above. Eclectix (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As for your being a newbie, I find it very interesting (and revealing) that you became aware of and tried to implement an RfC within hours of your first edit (excluding the one and only edit made three years ago).

Only because of the suddenness of the closing of the discussion and the lack of civility now displayed there forever for all to see, and I suggest they do take a look before judging anything based on heavy-handed and unfounded accusations. Eclectix (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Most editors (in fact, almost all editors) don't figure out about RfCs until they've been editing for a few month or years.

Well, I found that RFC section on a quick pass of trying to figure out what happens when an open discussion in talk is suddenly archived, but did not see the canvassing prohibition section. I can't help it if folks rushing to judgment by archiving an active talk discussion suddenly expect that newbies can't or shouldn't access the first procedure recommended for cases in which a party feels its good faith attempts at discussion have been thwarted inappropriately. The discussion is now reopened BTW so I consider the RFC to have succeeded, which is more than I can say for unsubstantiated accusations made here. If anything, I have been asked to accelerate my understanding and use of Wiki policy greatly in the last 24 hours by several others in several different directions, as discussed in the open. So apparently by your standard even if I do that, it only makes me a more suspicious entity. Is everyone familiar with the phrase "d*mned if you do and d*mned if you don't???" I concede that it seems that someone may be upset that I succeeded in reopening discussion quickly on a thread that was quickly closed, and may be coming here to vent and/or cast aspersions in sour grape mode. Eclectix (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... newbie??? Ward3001 (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that entities who come here drop the chip on their shoulder and be at a *minimum* civil, per Wiki civility policy. Communication performed civilly tends to be more effective and less noisy. Communication performed in an uncivil manner simply reflects poorly on the writer and casts doubt on whatever message content he or she may intend to convey. Eclectix (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Eclectix, since the consolidated discussion there on the Obama talkpage was becoming very long...

with arguments on both sides becoming quite repetitive, I boldly "archived" it. Hope you feel free to open a new section to offer new thoughts or present a clearer encapsulation of what you've already presented or argued. ↜Just me, here, now … 06:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Email

You should enable email. You could set up an account just for wikipedia. Others will not know your email address if you choose to use one you already have, unless you respond to their email. The email that you will receive from me if you enable will be from my institutional account, a show of my good faith. You could use any you like.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)