User talk:Iii33lll

Welcome!

Hello, Iii33lll, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck or looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Help Desk, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

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) 20:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotten into the swing of things very quickly, indeed. :) You've been making some great changes, today. I hope you stick around. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep cool on the Obama Nation talk page

WorkerBee74 has very strong opinions, and I'm familiar with his discussion style. He is also very smart and can be reasonable, but if you respond with exasperation, you'll just be wasting your time in a long thread that will go nowhere. We have plenty of time here, and if you get exasperated, there won't be any harm in taking a short break. Just some unsolicited advice. Thanks for your contributions to the page, by the way. -- Noroton (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. ==Iii33lll (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation notice

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, that an article to which you have recently contributed, The Obama Nation, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles.

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. -- Wikidemo (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This recent edit[1] does not appear helpful. You have reinstated disputed material without giving a valid reason. Your edit summary indicates you are using this objectionable material for bargaining leverage, a form of content gaming that might be seen as disruptive. Please consider voluntarily reverting this edit, and in the future editing these articles in a spirit of cooperation. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the talk. If you want to remove the McCain criticism then also remove the Obama criticism. To only remove one side is not WP:NPOV. Iii33lll (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can talk about the article on the article page. Don't do this.[2] You are on notice that these articles are under probation, as am I and most of the people editing the article - all should be on notice. Please do not alter the notice history because that is certainly disruptive. You also might want to look at editing these pages as something other than an Obama/McCain ~~WP:BATTLE~~contest.Wikidemo (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you made a one-sided edit and I reverted it. If you really object to the criticism it from both canidates. That is all. Iii33lll (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted[3] this edit.[4] That is not the page to register a complaint. If you will read the Obama article probation page you will note that there is a sub-page for the purpose. You are free to bring a complaint against me there. However, I strongly suggest you think twice before doing that. The notices about article probation are neutral, and are simply an effort to ensure that everybody knows the terms of probation before any administrative sanctions are applied. If you bring this matter to that page your own behavior will be under scrutiny. You are far better off stepping back from this, taking a deep breath, and re-approaching these articles in a spirit of collaboration. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I changed my mind, because you are attacking the process, not just me. However, my caution stands that you need to take a step back from this, and work on cooperating with me and other editors. Wikidemo (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been cooperating. You are the one who failed to WP:AGF: "Your edit summary indicates you are using this objectionable material for bargaining leverage." Looking at your porblems with others, I suggest you take a step back or at least WP:AGF. You could have been much more friendly, but from many of your responses you made a choice not to. I suggest you not be so heavy-handed in the future. Iii33lll (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I can understand how you might have been alarmed to receive a notice, and I'm sorry if that struck you as harsher than I intended. But please be aware that the Obama-related pages have a long history of trouble of all sorts, and we are trying to enforce some standards lest they turn into a free-for-all again. Bringing concerns up on a person's talk page is not an AGF violation - the talk page is usually the best place to do that, rather than saying things a more public way on the article talk page where everyone will read it. One of the terms of article probation is to severely limit comments about other editors on article talk pages. I was not accusing you of misconduct or bad faith when I observed that you are holding up improvements to the McCain section as a way of getting leverage over the Obama section. You said directly that you would not accept one without the other. That's not how editing is supposed to go but it's certainly not bad faith on your part, it's just a disagreement over how to edit the article. If you pay close attention I'm actually one of the most active proponents of removing the junk sourced to conservative bloggers from the Obama section too, and partisan anti-Obama attacks on other articles. Only that is harder because there are at least a couple editors advocating to keep it here - Noroton and WorkerBee74. It's hard to get a big compromise on the whole thing at the same time. Horse trading one thing for another is a difficult way to edit articles, and a break down of the normal editing process. Two wrongs don't make a right, you know. Just as a test, see what happens if I fix the Obama section. I might just do that to see what happens.Wikidemo (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]