:<b>Bigtimepeace</b> You threatened to ban me for adding true, well sourced info about CAFE. But you didn't criticize Scjessey for removing my true, well sourced info, and replacing it with false, unsourced info. Bigtimepeace, this is proof that you are being biased and unfair. [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600#top|talk]]) 14:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:<b>Bigtimepeace</b> You threatened to ban me for adding true, well sourced info about CAFE. But you didn't criticize Scjessey for removing my true, well sourced info, and replacing it with false, unsourced info. Bigtimepeace, this is proof that you are being biased and unfair. [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600#top|talk]]) 14:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
::BTW, Grundle, I'm counting -- you, Scjessey, and I are each at two reverts. Let's not get blocked, ok?--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 15:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This is just another in a very long line of agenda-driven edits that must stop, Grundle. How many times do you have to be told that these newsbites you keep shoving into articles are completely inappropriate? Yet again, you have inserted something into Political positions of Barack Obama that is not a political position. This is highly disruptive behavior for which you have received multiple warnings. Stop it now. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not balance. That's agenda-based editing, commonly referred to as "POV pushing". It shows a complete lack of understanding of WP:NPOV. You need to stop this tactic of putting trivial, poorly-sourced crap into Obama-related articles immediately. I'm going to request that you should be a named party in the ArbCom investigation. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think the San Francisco Chronicle is a poor source? Why do you think the Communist Party website is a poor source for the views of the Communist Party? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. It's not about the sources (although you synthesized meaning here by combining two sources), but about the appropriateness of the edits. As usual, you made no attempt to discuss what you surely knew would be highly contentious additions before putting them in. As usual, you added something that was not a political position into an article listing political positions. Every edit you make seems to be a bad faith attempt to smear Barack Obama, and that kind of agenda-based editing is totally unacceptable for Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not synthesis, because one source cited the other source. And I didn't "smear" Obama - all I did was cite the facts. Obama said he would stop the DEA raids on medical marijuana, but he did not keep his promise. Don't blame me for that - blame Obama. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to self-revert this crap immediately. It is not a political position. It is a claim by some random magazine. Stop your bad faith edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reason magazine is not a "random" magazine. It has been the #1 circulation libertarian magazine for decades. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tiny circulation, biased, your source comes from its blog. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Reason magazine article says the Chicago Tribune called it one of the 50 best magazines. Blogs from reputable publications are allowable as sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you totally miss my comment above that starts with "you are missing the point"? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read everything that you said. You said my entries were "poorly-sourced." But then after I defended the sources, you said it's not about the sources. You also falsely accused me of doing "original research," "inserting unpublished information," and putting my "personal analysis" into articles. You keep making one false accusation after another. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May 2009
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Presidency of Barack Obama, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cited my sources for everything. Everything was published. There was no original research. There were no personal attacks. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Party
I went and added you to the party as an Obama case. Doesn't mean you will or won't be sanctioned, though if you have any evidence you wish to add, or wish to propose or comment on ideas in the workshop, you are certainly welcome to. Wizardman 21:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added my defense to the section. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The article is about Johnston and not about the impregnation of Sarah Palin's daughter. He might be notable for that, but the article is not about that event. Please move back at once.TharsHammarBits andPieces 17:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
..."the article is not about that event". Have you read it lately? If the article is not about that 1 event, why is the entire ongoing Afd discussion revolving around the applicability of the BLP1E policy, which by the way specifically advises renaming 1 event articles for the event they cover. And don't template the regulars, it's just rude. (this guy registered in April 07 for crying out loud). On first impression, this guy is being harassed, templated and now blocked, for simply being being bold. MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would, however, urge you to consider whether boldly moving a high-profile BLP during a contentious AFD discussion without a proper WP:RM discussion was a good idea. Proposing the move on the talk page first may have avoided all this. Keep this in mind for the future. –xenotalk 22:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Talk:Michelle Obama. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Talk:Michelle Obama at the Reference desk.
Your source did not say anything about "nationalization" or George Bush, so you basically made some of it up - original research. Also, this addition is pure synthesis of multiple sources that violates the neutral point of view with more "however"-style constructs. I suggest you self revert and cease this agenda-based editing immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "a majority stake in GMAC" and "In December." Since I'm not supposed to quote articles, I summarized that info in my own words. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Topic ban right around the corner
I've been here to warn you before, and this is really and truly the final warning. Your recent editing over at Presidency of Barack Obama is unacceptable and part of a larger pattern whereby you engage in original research and/or use poor sources (or use acceptable sources inappropriately) in order to push non-NPOV, and at times non-notable, material into various Barack Obama related articles. The following three diffs all show problematic recent edits in this regard. [1][2][3]
The next time I see edits along these lines, I intend to ban your from Barack Obama articles for a fairly lengthy period of time per Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. After taking note of your editing pattern on these articles for some time, I've come to the conclusion that your contributions there are almost exclusively non-constructive. This is a final chance to change course, but if I see or am informed of these kind of edits again you will be banned from these articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did suggest that first one on the talk page. People said the source I cited was not reliable, so I found a better source, and added it to the article. My other edits are all well sourced. I think you're just afraid of people finding out the truth about Obama, so you want to ban me. There are about a dozen or so Obama supporters here who keep erasing my stuff and want to ban me. Wikipedia is supposed to be about free speech. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bigtimepeace You threatened to ban me for adding true, well sourced info about CAFE. But you didn't criticize Scjessey for removing my true, well sourced info, and replacing it with false, unsourced info. Bigtimepeace, this is proof that you are being biased and unfair. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Grundle, I'm counting -- you, Scjessey, and I are each at two reverts. Let's not get blocked, ok?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. 
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The article is about Johnston and not about the impregnation of Sarah Palin's daughter. He might be notable for that, but the article is not about that event. Please move back at once. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 17:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
