"Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks."
As a so-called justification for this restriction, the following contributions by me to wikipedia were cited:
"On April 20, 2009, Obama convened his Cabinet for the first time, and ordered them to reduce the $3.5 trillion federal budget by $100 million." Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/19/AR2009041902009.html
"In February 2009, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) expressed concern that Obama's czars might violate the U.S. Constitution, because they were not approved by the U.S. Senate." Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19303.html "U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) expressed a similar concern in September 2009." Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/59071-feingold-questions-obama-czars
"In September 2009, Obama's green czar Van Jones resigned after conservatives pointed out that he was a self described 'communist' and had blamed George W. Bush for the September 11 attacks." Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/06/phil-kerpen-van-jones-resign/
"In September 2009, it was reported that Kevin Jennings, Obama's Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, had written about his past frequent illegal drug use in his 2007 autobiography." Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23/critics-assail-obamas-safe-schools-czar-say-hes-wrong-man-job/
"Obama fired the CEO of General Motors..." Source: http://www.suntimes.com/business/1501561,w-obama-gm-wagoner032909.article "... and had the government take 60.8% ownership of the company." Source: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/us_owned_gm_rolls_off_the_lot_7MTALtVxWbRUK0OCm4uQgK
"During the Chrysler bankruptcy, Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock accused Obama of violating the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and more than 150 years of bankruptcy law by treating secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors." Source: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32074
"In August 2009, Obama supported $2 billion in loan guarantees to fund offshore drilling." Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/20/loan-brazilian-oil-company-riles-conservatives-favor-offshore-drilling/
"In May 2009, the Obama administration dismissed charges that had been filed by the Bush administration against members of the New Black Panther Party who had been videotaped intimidating voters and brandishing a police-style baton at a Philadelphia polling station during the November 2008 election." Sources: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/28/justice-department-drops-charges-in-voter-intimidation-case/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/05/29/charges-black-panthers-dropped-obama/ "In August 2009, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights demanded that the Justice Department explain why it dismissed the charges." Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/04/panel-demands-panther-answers/
"In June 2009, Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter, of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was 'confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve.' Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23831.html "A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated." Source: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/47280-allies-of-official-fired-by-obama-mount-defense
"In July 2009, White House reporter Helen Thomas criticized the Obama administration for what she considered to be a lack of transparency." Source: http://www.breitbart.tv/white-house-reporters-grill-gibbs-over-selected-questions-for-obama/
"In March 2007, Obama said, 'I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process...'" Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25779.html
"In September 2009, senior presidential adviser David Axelrod reiterated Obama's opposition to repealing the ban on interstate sales of health insurance." Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/09/sitroom.01.html
Rockmjd23
10-23-09, 09:34 PM
Ouch. Looks like you'll have to stick to adding prehistoric arthropods.
cpgator
10-23-09, 09:38 PM
Rightly so if that is the type of stuff you are posting. Write an editorial if you want to, but Wiki isn't really the place for stuff like that.
grundle
10-23-09, 10:13 PM
Rightly so if that is the type of stuff you are posting. Write an editorial if you want to, but Wiki isn't really the place for stuff like that.
Yes it is.
Wikipedia has this article called "Presidency of Barack Obama."
The article has a section on his environmental actions, which already stated:
"On February 10, 2009, Obama overturned a Bush administration policy that had opened up a five-year period of offshore drilling for oil and gas near both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts."
So, in order to balance it out, I added:
"In August 2009, Obama supported $2 billion in loan guarantees to fund offshore drilling."
But the people who control wikipedia have decided that while it's OK to cite Obama's actions against offshore drilling, it's not OK to simultaneously cite his actions in favor of offshore drilling.
Likewise, although the article has a section called "Transparency," they won't allow it to have claims and examples of Obama's non-transparency.
Likewise, although the article has a section on his economic policies, they won't allow it to show things that make him look bad.
There's another article called, "Political positions of Barack Obama" which is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama
That article has a section on his position on health care. But they won't allow it to have info about his position on health care that makes him look bad.
Dr Mabuse
10-23-09, 10:25 PM
You've been fighting with them for a while, so how are you surprised?
4KRG
10-23-09, 10:34 PM
big shock, no one is allowed to know the truth of O
Does it really surprise you?
cpgator
10-23-09, 10:35 PM
Yes it is.
It isn't suppose to be a hit piece. Should just be some basic fluff about him - if someone wants to get more info, they should know where to go.
DVD Polizei
10-23-09, 10:36 PM
So, you've been banned 2600 times. It's time for Grundle2601. :up:
Rockmjd23
10-23-09, 10:40 PM
The dude that always posts here bashing grundle's wikipedia contributions should be pleased...oh wait that's everyone.
grundle
10-23-09, 10:49 PM
You've been fighting with them for a while, so how are you surprised?
I'm not surprised.
grundle
10-23-09, 10:50 PM
So, you've been banned 2600 times. It's time for Grundle2601. :up:
Heh heh.
Actually, Grundle is the name of the green dragon on the video game "Adventure" on the Atari 2600.
Jason
10-23-09, 10:59 PM
maybe you should try conservapedia.
dork
10-23-09, 11:01 PM
Actually, Grundle is the name of the green dragon on the video game "Adventure" on the Atari 2600.
Liar. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundle)
JumpCutz
10-24-09, 12:04 AM
:lol:
kvrdave
10-24-09, 12:06 AM
Wow, I agree with grundle on this one. Things about the subject were posted and sourced. Is there no place in the "Presidency of Barak Obama" on wiki for things that may not be glowing?
I truly expected this to be stupid, but I agree with grundle. I have said it twice because I am that shocked.
Tracer Bullet
10-24-09, 01:21 AM
I just realized something. grundle had one too many vaccines as a child.
Sean O'Hara
10-24-09, 01:26 AM
Liar. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundle)
I would like to make three points about that page:
Three people decided to contribute to Wikipedia by taking close-up pictures of their (or a friend's) anus, complete with arrows highlighting different features. One of them is called "Hairy anus hair."
The article contains the line: A colloquial term for the perineum is the "taint", because "it ain't your (balls or pussy), and it ain't your asshole", meaning, "it isn't the genitals, and it isn't the anus" I don't know why, but I find this hilarious.
Grundle is the least of Wikipedia's problems.
spainlinx0
10-24-09, 01:28 AM
While I agree that there is nothing wrong with posting those articles if properly sourced, I find his constant wiki talk annoying and therefore will still laugh at this development.
Perhaps now you will find more time to lose your virginity? Maybe you can convince those Montessori schools to readmit you, and start some classes about socialization.
John Drake
10-24-09, 01:51 AM
I love how the sheeple don't take things like this seriously.
Maybe we'll bunk together in the gulag, and we can talk about what dipshits you are.
Nausicaa
10-24-09, 02:41 AM
I love how the sheeple don't take things like this seriously.
Maybe we'll bunk together in the gulag, and we can talk about what dipshits you are.
:lol:
Look everyone, the brownshrits have taken over wikipedia!
DeputyDave
10-24-09, 02:50 AM
Although I see nothing wrong with grundle's additions it does seem kind of silly to be mad at it. You would get the same reaction if you were to post on a religious page the glaring factual errors in the bible. In both cases you're dealing with religious zealots unwilling to see reality.
arminius
10-24-09, 08:58 AM
Wikipedia is rapidly becoming the disinformation site of choice for the masses. That may not be a good thing.
DeputyDave
10-24-09, 09:03 AM
Wikipedia is rapidly becoming the disinformation site of choice for the masses. That may not be a good thing.
That's been obvious for a while considering the completely one sided articles about global warming.
"Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks."
As a so-called justification for this restriction, the following contributions by me to wikipedia were cited:
"On April 20, 2009, Obama convened his Cabinet for the first time, and ordered them to reduce the $3.5 trillion federal budget by $100 million." Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/19/AR2009041902009.html
"In February 2009, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) expressed concern that Obama's czars might violate the U.S. Constitution, because they were not approved by the U.S. Senate." Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19303.html "U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) expressed a similar concern in September 2009." Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/59071-feingold-questions-obama-czars
"In September 2009, Obama's green czar Van Jones resigned after conservatives pointed out that he was a self described 'communist' and had blamed George W. Bush for the September 11 attacks." Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/06/phil-kerpen-van-jones-resign/
"In September 2009, it was reported that Kevin Jennings, Obama's Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, had written about his past frequent illegal drug use in his 2007 autobiography." Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23/critics-assail-obamas-safe-schools-czar-say-hes-wrong-man-job/
"Obama fired the CEO of General Motors..." Source: http://www.suntimes.com/business/1501561,w-obama-gm-wagoner032909.article "... and had the government take 60.8% ownership of the company." Source: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/us_owned_gm_rolls_off_the_lot_7MTALtVxWbRUK0OCm4uQgK
"During the Chrysler bankruptcy, Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock accused Obama of violating the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and more than 150 years of bankruptcy law by treating secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors." Source: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32074
"In August 2009, Obama supported $2 billion in loan guarantees to fund offshore drilling." Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/20/loan-brazilian-oil-company-riles-conservatives-favor-offshore-drilling/
"In May 2009, the Obama administration dismissed charges that had been filed by the Bush administration against members of the New Black Panther Party who had been videotaped intimidating voters and brandishing a police-style baton at a Philadelphia polling station during the November 2008 election." Sources: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/28/justice-department-drops-charges-in-voter-intimidation-case/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/05/29/charges-black-panthers-dropped-obama/ "In August 2009, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights demanded that the Justice Department explain why it dismissed the charges." Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/04/panel-demands-panther-answers/
"In June 2009, Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter, of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was 'confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve.' Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23831.html "A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated." Source: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/47280-allies-of-official-fired-by-obama-mount-defense
"In July 2009, White House reporter Helen Thomas criticized the Obama administration for what she considered to be a lack of transparency." Source: http://www.breitbart.tv/white-house-reporters-grill-gibbs-over-selected-questions-for-obama/
"In March 2007, Obama said, 'I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process...'" Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25779.html
"In September 2009, senior presidential adviser David Axelrod reiterated Obama's opposition to repealing the ban on interstate sales of health insurance." Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/09/sitroom.01.html
Daammn. -eek-I'm glad DVDTALK isn't like that.
With all the stuff I've posted about the Chicago Cubs.
mgbfan
10-24-09, 07:18 PM
Wow, I agree with grundle on this one. Things about the subject were posted and sourced. Is there no place in the "Presidency of Barak Obama" on wiki for things that may not be glowing?
As someone who makes a living as an editor, I look for anything published to be balanced. The piece added clearly seemed to come with an agenda. That's why it got the response it got.
Rockmjd23
10-25-09, 01:36 AM
Daammn. -eek-I'm glad DVDTALK isn't like that.
With all the stuff I've posted about the Chicago Cubs.
Uh yeah, clearly it's those posts of yours that people here take issue with.
kvrdave
10-25-09, 02:08 AM
As someone who makes a living as an editor, I look for anything published to be balanced. The piece added clearly seemed to come with an agenda. That's why it got the response it got.
Sure his are one sided, but they are in balance when you look at the fluff in the article by others, aren't they?
Cheato
10-25-09, 03:25 AM
And why is it up to Grundle to contribute ALL information? He contributed some, others contributed and can and will contribute some different information, and the information content grows. If there is more "negative" information available, well, that's pretty useful information in itself. Wikipedia shouldn't be filtering out information just because it isn't balanced. Is the Hitler page "balanced?" When did we arrive at the point where just because someone has an agenda, their information should be filtered out, regardless of whether or not it is true?
(Don't go nuts, people--I'm not comparing Obama to Hitler. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the "balanced" argument. Oh, for the days when such disclaimers were unnecessary...)
Brack
10-25-09, 04:00 AM
I don't think people should care too much about stuff getting deleted off a website they don't own.
Superboy
10-25-09, 06:51 AM
I hope you know, that this stuff will clearly fly on conservatopedia, encyclopedia dramatica, and 4chan.
Jason
10-25-09, 08:25 AM
And why is it up to Grundle to contribute ALL information? He contributed some, others contributed and can and will contribute some different information, and the information content grows. If there is more "negative" information available, well, that's pretty useful information in itself. Wikipedia shouldn't be filtering out information just because it isn't balanced. Is the Hitler page "balanced?" When did we arrive at the point where just because someone has an agenda, their information should be filtered out, regardless of whether or not it is true?
(Don't go nuts, people--I'm not comparing Obama to Hitler. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the "balanced" argument. Oh, for the days when such disclaimers were unnecessary...)
Why does Wikipedia have to have negative opinion spin added for "balance". I went and read the Barak Obama entry on Wikipedia, and it's just a straightforward biography. Yes, there are numerous details on what he's done in office, but they're just factual presentations of what was done.
I think the point is, a lack of conservative bias does NOT equal a liberal bias.
mhg83
10-25-09, 09:17 AM
It isn't suppose to be a hit piece. Should just be some basic fluff about him - if someone wants to get more info, they should know where to go.
The George W. Bush entry on Wikipedia has more than just fluff on him. Why should it be different for Obama?
Cheato
10-25-09, 09:25 AM
^^ Speaking of points, I'm sorry, but I think you missed mine. I was not saying anything about "spin" or "opinion." I also didn't say anything about Wikipedia having a bias one way or the other. My reference to "balance" was to mgbfan's point about looking for anything published to be balanced. I don't think Wikipedia should be striving for "balance." If Obama were perfect, then in a quest for "balance," we wouldn't be able to have a page about him at all, since for every pro there would have to be a "balancing" con. If he's perfect, his page should reflect that. If he's not, it should reflect that, instead.
My point was that the information should be provided, not filtered out, as long as it is factual. Choosing to filter out facts based on what agenda you think the person who provided them has is, by definition, censorship. Factual information should not be filtered out, regardless of how bad it might make someone look. Editing the presentation of those facts to replace biased language with neutral language would be appropriate, as would adding information to place the facts in context.
For example, in a theoretical situation:
Barack Obama raised taxes on gas by 200%.
might become
The Obama Administration, in compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in order to fund research on reducing carbon emissions, endorsed a bill that increased a surcharge on gasoline from .01% to .03%, resulting in a charge of, on average, 3 cents when refueling the average vehicle in America.
Jason
10-25-09, 09:37 AM
The Obama Administration, in compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in order to fund research on reducing carbon emissions, endorsed a bill that increased a surcharge on gasoline from .01% to .03%, resulting in a charge of, on average, 3 cents when refueling the average vehicle in America.
A factually correct way of stating what the increase would be, except for the bolded phrase, which should be removed.
Barack Obama raised taxes on gas by 200%.
ZOMG!!1! tax and spend liberal at work!!1! dON'T TREED ON ME!
Cheato
10-25-09, 11:08 AM
^ I don't actually see where you're going with this now.
You didn't bother to straighten out your earlier (possible) misconception of my point, even though I tried to clarify it for you (read: restate it by dumbing it down), and have instead just moved on to, what, nitpicking and mockery?
Did the first part of that last reply have some point you were trying to make? You didn't have anything to say about the topic of this thread, so you just decided to try to find some little chink in something I said so you could derail the point? The kind of calculation and presentation of facts like that is done all the time. I was an actuarial assistant for two years while I was in college, and we literally had tables of things just like that: heating oil usage by county, by family size, by outside temperature, by oil unit cost, etc., etc.. It is completely appropriate to derive a statement like that from a calculation using estimated/approximate/average values in order to put something in perspective. Was I trying to create a perfect Wikipedia entry? No. I wrote "might become" right before that. Your statement that it "should be" removed has no merit. That's your opinion (definition of "should").
And just in case you needed it spelled out for you: this was a hypothetical entry. America is not complying with the Kyoto Protocol. Your "joke" at the end was unclear about whether you realized that.
OldDude
10-25-09, 11:44 AM
For example, in a theoretical situation:
Barack Obama raised taxes on gas by 200%.
might become
The Obama Administration, in compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in order to fund research on reducing carbon emissions, endorsed a bill that increased a surcharge on gasoline from .01% to .03%, resulting in a charge of, on average, 3 cents when refueling the average vehicle in America.
I recognize that this is "theoretical," I really do. However, I feel compelled to point out (and source) that the Federal gasoline tax is $0.184/gallon.
http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
Tripling it would be $0.552/gallon, and it might be more like $7 in an average refueling. Perhaps not such good news for mid-income families.
OldDude
10-25-09, 11:52 AM
In America, the truth shall set you free
At Wikipedia, the truth gets you banned.
:lol:
kvrdave
10-25-09, 04:07 PM
I went and read the Barak Obama entry on Wikipedia, and it's just a straightforward biography. Yes, there are numerous details on what he's done in office, but they're just factual presentations of what was done.
I'm sure that's not to be confused with what he's accomplished. :lol:
maxfisher
10-25-09, 08:12 PM
Sorry to hear about the ban Grundle. Considering how many people now seem to accept wikipedia as an infallible source of information, I really don't think they have any business deleting factual information. If they feel it's not relevant enough to the specific article, they could always move it to the end under an 'Other facts' section. Anyway, sometimes I agree 100% with the points you make and sometimes I find them completely asinine, but either way, they're most usually entertaining.
mgbfan
10-26-09, 01:33 AM
I think the point is, a lack of conservative bias does NOT equal a liberal bias.
I think this argument is far too rational for the haters.
John Slider
10-26-09, 01:48 AM
The fact of the matter is, Wikipedia is not supposed to contain a novel on each individual topic. It contains merely a overview of each article, and if you wish to know more about said subject you should consult other modes of information. Grundle was adding small facts with a distinct conservative bias just for the fun of it. Wikipedia doesn't have room for all your little spins, and I doubt people want to sift through your tedious bullshit when reading an article.:rolleyes:
kvrdave
10-26-09, 03:16 AM
Agreed. No one should find out negative things about the Obama on wiki, or they might wish to know more and consult other modes of information. Bush can have those types of things on wiki, but the Obama has given us hope.
DeputyDave
10-26-09, 03:26 AM
:lol: I love how People only see their side of things. Disliking both Bush and Obama I see how skewed things have become.
Nausicaa
10-26-09, 11:59 AM
Please, most of the shit cited for the ban was only tangentially related to Obama the person and appropriate for a bio page. I don't see the relevence of quotes from Van Jones or the drug-use history of other people, or the value in using language like, "Obama fired the CEO of General Motors". Not to mention, we all know Grundle has a history with the folks at Wiki. I seem to recall an entry for Michelle Obama's arms of which grundle was quite proud.
maxfisher
10-26-09, 01:08 PM
Please, most of the shit cited for the ban was only tangentially related to Obama the person and appropriate for a bio page. I don't see the relevence of quotes from Van Jones or the drug-use history of other people, or the value in using language like, "Obama fired the CEO of General Motors". Not to mention, we all know Grundle has a history with the folks at Wiki. I seem to recall an entry for Michelle Obama's arms of which grundle was quite proud.
The two links grundle posted to pages he'd edited were on Obama's presidency and his political positions. If you look at them, they're huge and contain many details that are no more important or less biased than the information grundle claims to have posted.
Groucho
10-26-09, 01:16 PM
I don't know how much activity the article gets today, but back when Bush was president there were a number of "liberal grundles" trying to insert similar edits on a daily basis -- and many of them were suspended or banned as well.
I don't need to read the article in question or grundle's inserted items to know that grundle's banning was justified. And shame on kvrdave for thinking otherwise! :lol:
mgbfan
10-26-09, 05:23 PM
I don't know how much activity the article gets today, but back when Bush was president there were a number of "liberal grundles" trying to insert similar edits on a daily basis -- and many of them were suspended or banned as well.
Shut up! It's the LIBERALS dammit!
Hokeyboy
10-28-09, 10:10 PM
Blowing up Jews?
hahn
10-28-09, 10:19 PM
I think Grundle has too much time on his hands. Speaking as an Otter, that's saying a lot. ;)
grundle
10-28-09, 10:22 PM
I added the info to make the article balanced. Removing the info made the article unbalanced.
During the discussion of my proposed ban, I asked the following questions about the wikipedia article called "Presidency of Barack Obama."
1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Why should I be punished for adding that info to the article?
2) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.
3) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."
4) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use?
5) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?
6) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama's economic policy?
7) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party, not relevant to the section on those czars?
Superboy
10-29-09, 01:14 AM
I added the info to make the article balanced. Removing the info made the article unbalanced.
During the discussion of my proposed ban, I asked the following questions about the wikipedia article called "Presidency of Barack Obama."
1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Why should I be punished for adding that info to the article?
2) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.
3) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."
4) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use?
5) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?
6) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama's economic policy?
7) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party, not relevant to the section on those czars?
It's still under review. Hell, you should have seen the GWB article over the past 8 years. It went from far-right to far-left - and when it was far left it was locked and most of the entries were reversed.
The Bus
10-29-09, 09:49 AM
Let me put this as politely as I can; your input into political articles is no longer valued or desired by the Wikipedia community, hence the indefinite topic ban. Posting this same insipid list in every forum you have touched in the last few weeks is wearisome and unproductive, especially as some (if not all) were addressed by grsz at one time already. That they were not answered to your specific and particular liking is just, I'm dunno, too bad.
Advice? Walk away. Go help ChildofMidnight write better bacon articles, or find a nice non-political corner of the Wikipedia and settle into it. Surely you have other interests or hobbies that your energy could be directed towards.
http://i36.tinypic.com/214th6r.jpg
"What are you saying?!"
eXcentris
10-29-09, 01:54 PM
The Barnstar of Liberty
I hereby award you the Nobel Barnstar for Liberty and Integrity. Despite incessant provocation and harassment from the most abusive policy violating POV pushers, you maintained your calm and kept your focus on article content issues. Given your persistence and the long odds that came with your being greatly outnumbered, the outcome was predictable. Yet your refusal to renounce fundamental liberties of expression and your unwillingness to give in to the hideous pack of snarling beasts that stood against you will always stand as an inspiration to Wikipedians who value fairness, inclusiveness and truth. Kudos.
Woah, so Grundle is like the Obama of Wikipedia. Awesome! :)
Sean O'Hara
10-29-09, 03:31 PM
Grundle should try Yahoo Answers. There are people over there with like-minded senses of truth. Just think of the detailed answers he can offer for questions like:
If barrack Obama or Hilary Clinton where atheist gay or bisexual or handicap would you vote fore them still?
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
Very good question. Kudo's to you.
The only thing that MIGHT change my vote is the atheist thing.
I think we should all believe in a greater power. I would respect you if you were atheist but I would not want you running my country. Gay, Bisexual, or handicapped wouldn't bother me. I would only hope this person had lived their life honorably.
Is Obama bisexual with a history of having sex and smoking crack with men?
What are some of the illegal drugs that Obama has "experimented" with? How frequently did he use them?
Why does Obama think its ok to kill babies before they have a chance to live?
And my favorite:
It was predicted that I would die today, what should I do?
am an editor of a highbrow literary magazine and chairman of the management cofnmittee of one of the biggest local literary clubs, known by its abbreviation as massolit. I had a talk in a park with one of our writes, Ivan Bezdomny (it's not his real name, it's a pseudonym). He was commissioned to write a long anti-religious poem for one of the regular issues of his magazine. He got it all wrong -he has talent, Bezdomny does, but he approached the subject from a wrong point of view. I talked to him about the famous Philo of Alexandria and the brilliantly educated Josephus Flavius, and a passage in Chapter 44 of the fifteenth book of Tacitus' Annals. It was a novelty to him, and he listened, and, hopefully, understood what was wanted. While we talked, a man came up to us - a foreigner, he wore an expensive grey suit and foreign shoes, a beret and spoke with an accent. He said that he overheard our conversation - and was happy to hear that we were atheists. Then he started rambling about deep issues, like if there is no God, who, then, rules the life of man and keeps the world in order, suchlike things. Then he said that men do not, because they are mortal, and they die suddenly. Then he said that I would die today, my head would be cut off! I said that I had a meeting that evening, with the massolit, and he said, impossible, and rambled about some Anna who had already bought the sunflower-seed oil, and had already spilled it. I am not religious, and I am not superstitions, but the way he talked made an impression on me. What if he was somehow - I don't know how - right? What if my destiny is to lose my head tonight? How can I prevent it, what should I do?
CRM114
10-29-09, 03:53 PM
6) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama's economic policy?
Because thats not how you worded it. You worded it that Obama fired the CEO when clearly anyone with any knowledge of US corporations would know that the Board of Directors is the entity which hires or fires CEOs. This is usually at the behest of shareholders. How the firing is relevant to Obama directly is beyond me.
mgbfan
10-30-09, 03:06 PM
It really is simple. Nobody has a problem with balance. They have a problem with someone coming in with an agenda. Which the OP clearly did. Seems pretty open and shut to me.
The Bus
10-30-09, 05:17 PM
My <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viva_Pi%C3%B1ata">Viva Piñata</a> article is still bigger and more noteworthy than any of yours, grundle. :p
Senor Javi
10-30-09, 09:24 PM
I think there should be a rule. Every time you want to post something bad about Obama, you should have to post something good about him in order to make it fair. However, if you want to post something good about him, you don't have to post anything bad about him because that would be stupid. Alternatively, every time you want to post something bad about Obama, you should have to post something good about him in order to show that there is no bias. However, if you want to post something good about him, you don't have to post anything bad about him because there can't be a bias.
dork
10-30-09, 09:40 PM
I think there should be a rule. Every time you want to post something bad about Obama, you should have to post something good about him in order to make it fair. However, if you want to post something good about him, you don't have to post anything bad about him because that would be stupid. Alternatively, every time you want to post something bad about Obama, you should have to post something good about him in order to show that there is no bias. However, if you want to post something good about him, you don't have to post anything bad about him because there can't be a bias.
Now you have to post something good.
Senor Javi
10-30-09, 09:48 PM
Now you have to post something good.
Barack Obama is an inspiration and one of the best car salesmen of our generation.
orangecrush
10-30-09, 11:29 PM
My <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viva_Pi%C3%B1ata">Viva Piñata</a> article is still bigger and more noteworthy than any of yours, grundle. :pLife simulation game? What kind of crazy life are you living?
Buy: