User talk:GoodDamon/Archives/2008/September

Ssssh, Be Very Very Quiet, its Oregon COTW time
Howdy folks, its time for this week’s edition of Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week. First off, great job the last two weeks with Greg Oden & the Hospital red link drive. We had close to ten new hospital articles and two DYKs plus other improvements to the list itself. So thank you to those who helped out. This week, we have on a sad note Kevin Duckworth, and the Statesman Journal. Duckworth should have plenty of sources so hopefully in tribute we can get his article up to standards. With the SJ, hopefully we can get it above a stub so all three of the top three papers are no longer stubs, and maybe even a DYK and GA like we got from the Register-Guard? Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Hasta la bye bye. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Much deserved

 * Thanks! There's my warm fuzzies for the morning. :) -- Good Damon 16:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ORE COTW Version 2.2
Hello WikiProject Oregon contributors. It's time for another COTW. Thank you to those who helped improve Kevin Duckworth and the Statesman Journal last week, we received another DYK for the SJ. This week, by request we have Mr. Ken Kesey and not by request Nike, Inc.. Nike is the only Start class article in the top 30 of those articles selected for the hard copy edition, and it could easily be improved to B class. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Mtngoat63
Please note that I have filed an WP:AN/I report on this user here. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I would have two hours ago, but got busy IRL. -- Good Damon 02:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.


 * I support a speedy unblock of this editor, who was vandal fighting. The edits in question were a poorly sourced WP:COATRACK from a wildly tendentious SPA and entirely inappropriate for the encyclopedia.  The Washington Post and NPR were duplicate citations were cut-and-pasted from elsewhere in the article (including duplicating the reference name assignments), and did not at all support the statement deleted, which was a claim that the person was a nationally prominent leader influenced by Alinsky.  At worst the editor was overzealous in dealing with a problem editor and should have stepped aside to let an administrator do the deed.  We need ongoing help keeping the peace here, not to have good editors blocked for dealing with vandlas.  I'm sure GoodDamon will promise to be more careful and not repeat tis if unblocked.  Right?  Wikidemon (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from blocking admin
It's not that I don't think you weren't well intentioned. WP:3RR is an electric fence. You say you were reverting vandalism, which the edits were not. I'm not saying they were good edits that you reverted at all - in fact I wouldn't defend them in any way, but they do not appear to be vandalism. However, none of the exceptions to the 3RR apply and you hit it on several articles.

If you agree to cease this multi-article edit war and seek other resolution (I'd be willing to protect the page), I'd be glad to unblock. However, this is a classic edit war as I see it.

FWIW, I think 3RR is by far the most common rule to trip up otherwise well-intentioned editors such as yourself. Toddst1 (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I will gladly agree to that. I suppose I got a little overzealous with this particularly pugnacious editor. Thank you for re-reviewing. -- Good Damon 04:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad it's worked out. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I'm not planning to do any more editing tonight, but when does the unblock take effect? I attempted to edit a page for testing purposes, and am still unable to. -- Good Damon 05:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:


 * 1) If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in. Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are. If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
 * 2) Try to [ edit the Sandbox].
 * 3) If you are still blocked, copy the {&#123;unblock-ip&#124;...&#125;} code generated for you under the " IP blocked? " section. This is usually hidden within the " What do I do now? " section. If so, just click the "[show]" link to the right hand side to show this text.
 * 4) Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You should be fine now - please post another template if it doesn't let you edit properly. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 02:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing on Obama
Thank you for this well-put comment. I don't have the energy to answer this same thing over and over and over again more than I did this last time, so I'm very glad that editors like you have come along to help keep this article balanced and accurate. Tvoz / talk 18:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Boy, it's downright exhausting. I just don't understand... We can explain the same things over and over again, and point out specific examples of text in their own supposed citations that contradict what they want to wedge into the article -- and they just repeat themselves. Pointing out guidelines and even specific policies they are trying to violate simply doesn't register with them. Maybe that's the plan... wear out neutral editors who want to see a good article until we give up, then edit in their POV freely. -- Good Damon 19:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say, I think that is precisely the plan. It has been going on since the campaign began, with shifting editors  - or at least their names change - there's been socking going on as well.  They've managed to chase away  numerous fair-minded editors, but some of the good guys take some time away and then return with renewed energy, and  also new folks come in and try to maintain the integrity of the article. Another favorite trick is to drown the talk page in endless verbiage - and I mean endless - agree with each other, and claim consensus - even though no real consensus has been reached, because many  people are unwilling to get caught up in the repetition. It is exhausting indeed.   Nice to meet you, by the way - keep up the good work!  Tvoz / talk 20:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just don't want to think that of my fellow Wikipedia editors, you know? I mean, you'd think it would occur to some of them that if you have to lie and cheat to support a position, it might be time to rethink that position. -- Good Damon 01:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I lost any such hope quite a while ago. Take a look at Sarah Palin, for example. Tvoz / talk 02:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh... I prefer not to. Just give me the bird's-eye view. -- Good Damon 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Red red links make me feel so fine...
Greetings WikiProject Oregon editors. It's time for another edition of the COTW. Thank you to those who helped improve Ken Kesey and the Nike, Inc. last week. This week, by request we have the Northwest Forest Plan and then a Red Link Elimination Drive. For the red links, pick any one you want from any article, the list provided is just to help make it easier. And if you get a good article started, don’t forget to nominate it for a DYK. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Alinksy
Only non-controversial categories should be added to articles. Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) . He was born in the United States, not Russia, and
 * 2) . It's unsourced.
 * Yes, but his parents were Russian (which is sourced in a biography about Alinsky). I thought Americans of Russian descent was what that category is for. -- Good Damon 23:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The category isn't "Americans of Russian-Jewish descent". Jayjg (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess the question is, does "Russian-American" get treated the same way as "African-American?" According to the Category's description, I think it does. Saul Alinsky was Jewish, and was born of Russian immigrants in America. Does that make sense, or am I missing something? I don't want to re-add the category without this being worked out. -- Good Damon 13:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

C&P?
In this edit summary, what does C&P mean? Thank you. &mdash;Goodtimber (walk/talk) 05:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Copy & paste. Based on the bizarre behavior of the text posted by the anonymous editor, it looked like it had been copied and pasted from somewhere. The characters used were not the sort you would get simply typing the text into a field. They were encoded strangely, resulting in an odd display bug. That's a pretty sure sign they were copied from a web page or other type of document that produces text with style attributes applied, not just typed in. -- Good Damon 06:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)