Changes

'''11 - 2009, 12/17, 17:49:''' User NoHitHair responded to my new post with a new section titled "NPOV" expressing frustration that my edits had been reverted, and that controversy was being kept out of the Obama page:

'''11 - 2009, 12/17, 17:49:''' User NoHitHair responded to my new post with a new section titled "NPOV" expressing frustration that my edits had been reverted, and that controversy was being kept out of the Obama page:

NPOV  

NPOV  

This article is blatantly in favor of Obama. There isn't even a criticisms area. In the economic section, not a word is devoted to any of the bailouts made available to Wall Street or foreign banks. Nothing is stated about the trillions the Fed handed over to recipients they refuse to disclose. The AIG scandal is left completely out. There is nothing in this article that lends any opposing voice to Obama's presidency.  

:This article is blatantly in favor of Obama. There isn't even a criticisms area. In the economic section, not a word is devoted to any of the bailouts made available to Wall Street or foreign banks. Nothing is stated about the trillions the Fed handed over to recipients they refuse to disclose. The AIG scandal is left completely out. There is nothing in this article that lends any opposing voice to Obama's presidency.  

I believe I'm done editing Wikipedia articles. Places have turned into travel brochures instead of accurate representations of the areas (Downtown Eastside is an excellent example of this propagandizing) and living persons are often idolized. When an individual steps up to fix the article, it is often removed by rabidly partisan Wiki-ers. Wikipedia is nothing like it was in years past. What began as an honest attempt is now a mouthpiece in a popularity contest.

:I believe I'm done editing Wikipedia articles. Places have turned into travel brochures instead of accurate representations of the areas (Downtown Eastside is an excellent example of this propagandizing) and living persons are often idolized. When an individual steps up to fix the article, it is often removed by rabidly partisan Wiki-ers. Wikipedia is nothing like it was in years past. What began as an honest attempt is now a mouthpiece in a popularity contest.

NoHitHair (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Source 11

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NoHitHair NoHitHair] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NoHitHair talk]) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

 

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332398401&oldid=332391965 Source 11]

'''12 - 2009, 12/17, 17:49-18:20:''' Users DD2K and Ouroboros Cobra responded with blatant hostility, DD2K responding to my "Coverage of Controversies" section, and Cobra to NoHitHair's "NPOV" section:

'''12 - 2009, 12/17, 17:49-18:20:''' Users DD2K and Ouroboros Cobra responded with blatant hostility, DD2K responding to my "Coverage of Controversies" section, and Cobra to NoHitHair's "NPOV" section:

Are you kidding? This isn't a political advertisement website that has a place for one side or the other to post their political adds against political figures. If you want to go around Wikipedia and accuse WP:BLP of killing children, you're not going to last very long. My suggestion for you is to either drastically reduce the size of your last edit here(there is a 500 word limit) and strike the portions that are purposely inflammatory, or just revert the whole thing. DD2K (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)   

Are you kidding? This isn't a political advertisement website that has a place for one side or the other to post their political adds against political figures. If you want to go around Wikipedia and accuse WP:BLP of killing children, you're not going to last very long. My suggestion for you is to either drastically reduce the size of your last edit here(there is a 500 word limit) and strike the portions that are purposely inflammatory, or just revert the whole thing. DD2K (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)   

Probably because you are looking in the wrong article. Most of those things would be in the Presidency of Barack Obama, not this, which is a biography of the man, not a play by play of his presidency. Have fun leaving though, it's always great to work with people who shout a lot and then say they hate you. Don't let the Internet ports slam in your ass as you close them. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 12

 

:Probably because you are looking in the wrong article. Most of those things would be in the Presidency of Barack Obama, not this, which is a biography of the man, not a play by play of his presidency. Have fun leaving though, it's always great to work with people who shout a lot and then say they hate you. Don't let the Internet ports slam in your a** as you close them. --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:OuroborosCobra OuroborosCobra] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OuroborosCobra talk]) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

'''13 - 2009, 12/17, 18:23:''' User JzG removed my entire Coverage of Controversies edit section from the Talk Page with a revision comment of "(removing blatantly inappropriate material}" Source 13a

This was then reversed by Queen of Battle with an edit comment of "(Undid revision 332403367 by JzG (talk)This is a content dispute, please do not revert others' comments)" Source 13b

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332402943&oldid=332398401#.3D.3D Source 12]

Grsz then removed the section again with an edit comment of "(Undid revision 332438724 by QueenofBattle (talk) it is inappropriate, and on a talk page, not a content dispute)" Source 13c

'''13 - 2009, 12/17, 18:23:''' User JzG removed my entire Coverage of Controversies edit section from the Talk Page with a revision comment of "(removing blatantly inappropriate material}" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=332402943 Source 13a]

This was then reversed by Queen of Battle with an edit comment of "([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDO Undid] revision 332403367 by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JzG JzG] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG talk])This is a content dispute, please do not revert others' comments)" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=332403367 Source 13b]

Grsz then removed the section again with an edit comment of "([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDO Undid] revision 332438724 by QueenofBattle (talk) it is inappropriate, and on a talk page, not a content dispute)" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332439690&oldid=332438724Source 13c]

Needless to say, some of the page's primary editors, Scjessey, Grsz, and JzG, were not interested from the start in even allowing my edits consideration, but were trying to censor them from the beginning, while others like GoodDay and OuroborosCobra showed initial hostility. It became very clear just within the first few hours how blatantly biased some of the editors would prove to be. All of this was just over trying to have a conversation about submission of the material! They did not even want to allow the conversation to begin, let alone hear it out with objective consideration.

Needless to say, some of the page's primary editors, Scjessey, Grsz, and JzG, were not interested from the start in even allowing my edits consideration, but were trying to censor them from the beginning, while others like GoodDay and OuroborosCobra showed initial hostility. It became very clear just within the first few hours how blatantly biased some of the editors would prove to be. All of this was just over trying to have a conversation about submission of the material! They did not even want to allow the conversation to begin, let alone hear it out with objective consideration.