User talk:Local667forOb

NPOV
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Please make a point of familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Since you've declared yourself to have both a strong union connection and a strong Obama affiliation, you'll be looked at quite carefully, and people might wonder about some of your editing decisions -- for example, your comment that describing Hawaii as majority-minority is "anti-Obama" is somewhat curious. Anyway, be extra careful about NPOV as you continue editing. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Barack Obama article
You don't need to justify all of your edits on the talk page. That's what edit summaries are for. You may also want to avoid implying your fellow editors are not telling the truth by leaving out a relatively minor fact. Sometimes information is left out because an editor feels that it really isn't that important or they were unaware of it. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as an FYI, if you're responding to a previous comment, please put colons in front of your comment. Just make sure there is one more colon in front of your comment then the comment of the person to whom you are replying. That way later readers can read the threads easier and, in this case of this edit, your comment won't wrap to the end of the previous comment. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And another suggestion.. You may want to tone down your edit summaries a bit. ;) Not that there is anything technically wrong with them, but editorializing in the edit summary tends to make people more apt to be critical of your additions. A short description of what you're adding is preferable. As an example, your edit summary for the addition of Obama's willingness to invade Pakistan could have been better, perhaps something along the lines of "adding Obama's willingness to attack al Qaeda in Pakistan". An example of a good edit summary would be the one for your changing of the wording on Secret Service protection being provided to Obama. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, don't get discouraged that your edits are being undone, ideas are being shotdown, and a fair number of suggestions are being left on your talk page. You've picked a highly visible article that also happens to be a Featured article to start editing on, so the standards are pretty high about what gets put on the article and how the addition is worded. Once you get past this initial bow wave of newness things should level out. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There have been over 30 edits between the version you reverted to and the previous version. If you do not agree with any of Hailfire's edits, you're more than welcome to go through his edits one at a time and undo them. Reverting 30 edits and then vowing to re-add is the completely wrong way to go about things. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page
If something you added has been removed with an explanation and a request to "see talk", please go to the talk page and discuss it - don't just revert to your addition. That's edit warring. I'm removing those additions again - returning to the way the article read previously - and there are comments on talk about both. Let's see what other editors think. Tvoz | talk 19:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

edit summary
Could you explain what you mean by this edit summary: "Hey, I didn't say Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Jr. Do you want that instead??" Tvoz | talk 04:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your user page
Why are you running a complete copy of the Barak Obama article as your user page? This is not a normal use for a user page. You may want to read up on some of the Wikipedia guidlines. Please be advised that Wikipedia is not a campaign website, it is an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, your user name combined with your edit history makes it appear that you are only here to act as a campaign spokesman for Obama. Edits to the Obama article should be to describe him and not promote him. I'm sure you can understand that there is a difference. Please, branch out into some additional subjects. It will give you a wider field of experience and help you to understand WP:NPOV. Thank you. --StuffOfInterest 22:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith and No personal attacks
Please read Wikipedia's rules concerning good faith and personal attacks. Those rules apply to edit summaries as well as Talk pages. Writing edit summaries such as "Let's stop lying", and describing other editors as "judge and prison warden" could be interpreted as violations of those rules. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but nobody was identified as being the liar. Lying is when you don't tell the truth. This is factual. If you lie, you are at fault, not the one pointing it out.Local667forOb 23:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You've been asked more than once to tone down your edit summaries, yet you continue to post provocative ones that accuse other editors of lying, etc. That is not collegial editing.  Tvoz | talk 23:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * By writing "more honest description. Cmmon, they didn't endorse a republican. Let's stop lying", you accused every editor who has worked on that paragraph of being dishonest.
 * Meanwhile, your edit didn't change the meaning of the sentence in any substantive way. Compare the old language to your sentence:
 * "During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, Obama won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police"
 * "During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, Obama's opponent, Dan Hynes, won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose officials later endorsed him after Dan Hynes lost the Democratic primary"
 * Your sentence is wrong. The FOP didn't endorse Hynes in the 2004 general election if Obama beat him in the Democratic primary, did they? So why did you write it? Are you lying?
 * In the end, both sentences say the same thing: The FOP backed Obama in the general election. (Actually, your sentence doesn't say that, but it tries to.) And who said anything about endorsing a Republican?
 * Please be more thoughtful and respectful in the future. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not accusing you of lying; I think you were rushing and as a result your prose was a little sloppy. My point is that we all get along better when we assume good faith instead of calling one another names. We all have the same objective: maintaining the article's generally high quality, and improving it where appropriate. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

OK :) Local667forOb 00:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

please stop reverting
The edits that were made a few days ago were sound and improved the article - please stop reverting them, as you were asked in edit summaries. See comments on Talk:Barack Obama as well. Tvoz | talk 23:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No original research
Please take some time and familarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies, including No original research.

Your recent addition, "Obama, unlike some politicians, owns and drives a car like most Americans. He drives a Chrysler 300C." was an example of "original research".

The USA Today article asked the presidential candidates what car they drive. Every one of them said that they drive American brands, so the article does not support your assertion that Obama is "unlike some politicians". Nor does the article say that Obama "owns" the Chrysler that he drives.

In addition, the article doesn't say anything about what "most Americans" drive. Most Americans may drive SUVs, hovercraft, or they may not own or drive any vehicle at all. You cannot make an assertion about what "most Americans" do without providing a reliable source for your statement. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Dereks1x
Hey, Dereks1x. Just letting you know that you got caught again. When are you going to give up? You've been banned from editing on Wikipedia, stop coming back here. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I AM NOT THIS DEREK GUY. I LOOKED AT HIS EDITS. HE IS ANTI-ANTI-ANTI OBAMA. I AM PRO OBAMA. NONE OF MY EDITS ARE ANTI-OBAMA.

ARE YOU A HILLARY SUPPORTER AND WANT TO HURT ANYONE WITH LIKES OBAMA? Local667forOb 23:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

YOU SAID YOU WOULD REVERT MY EDITS. THIS IS PROOF THAT YOU ARE ANTI-OBAMA AND ARE BLOCKING ME FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. Local667forOb 23:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)