Ohaohashingo
| Welcome!
Here are a few good links for newcomers:
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:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing! If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page! Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages:
Best of luck to you, and happy editing! – Luna Santin (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
August 2008 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to The Obama Nation appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Wikilost (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I'm so new I didn't notice this talk until now. Not sure where I went non-neutral but I wouldn't be surprised if some of my first edits crossed a line. I think I'm getting the hang of it now. --Ohaohashingo (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome! I just wanted to make you aware, if you weren't already, that the Obama-related articles (interpreted broadly) are under article probation due to past edit wars. You may wish to familiarize yourself with the terms of the probation as I'd hate to see a well-meaning new editor get bitten inadvertently. With these articles, it's especially important to comment on content, not contributors. Comments like "Corsi, is that you?" may be seen by some as a personal attack, or at least an accusation of bad faith. If you keep your comments focused on the content of the article, rather than on the possible motivations of other editors, you'll generally be ok. If there's anything I can do to help you find your way around, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks, --Clubjuggle T/C 20:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Your removal [1] of my edit that showed that "The Obama Nation" was non-fiction[2] and replacing it with "controversial" with the edit summary of "it's obvious" was less than satisfactory. I welcome you to view Wikipedia's very own page entitled "Non-fiction" and discover why the book falls in this category. I will assume that your edit was in good faith and motivated by your ignorance as to what the term 'non-fiction' truly means. I would caution you to review the definitions of unfamiliar terms before removing the good faith additions of editors, Happy editing.86.140.187.136 (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Die4Dixie (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, Dixie, I changed "controversial non-fiction book" to "controversial book." I labeled the change "obvious" because it's obvious that we were talking about non-fiction. If you find that "less than satisfactory," you're welcome to reinsert the word "non-fiction." --Ohaohashingo (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I will add the non-fiction back when the article is unprotected again. This[3]would show that what might be obvious to you and me, is less than clear to others. Sorry to have misplaced you. You are of course right, and I mistaken; you did not replace "non-fiction" with "controversial". It was already present, and I do apologize. Cheers.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- i saw where you said Erik the red and others had commented with "reason" . could you show me where Erik had commented on this or any others than the ones you enumerated? I'm sure I am missing something.Cordially,--Die4Dixie (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome! I just wanted to make you aware, if you weren't already, that the Obama-related articles (interpreted broadly) are under article probation due to past edit wars. You may wish to familiarize yourself with the terms of the probation as I'd hate to see a well-meaning new editor get bitten inadvertently. With these articles, it's especially important to comment on content, not contributors. Comments like "Corsi, is that you?" may be seen by some as a personal attack, or at least an accusation of bad faith. If you keep your comments focused on the content of the article, rather than on the possible motivations of other editors, you'll generally be ok. If there's anything I can do to help you find your way around, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks, --Clubjuggle T/C 20:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Dixie. Looking back, I don't see him in the section I was referring to. Must have mixed him up with someone else. Where has he added "reason" to discussions, you ask? I guess what stuck in my mind was his comment that "it is quite sad indeed and says a lot about our growing prejudices that one can be "guilty" of being a Muslim." --Ohaohashingo (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:FAR for Barack Obama edit
Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)