User talk:SamIamOnFire

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cjim63 (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oom Yung Doe article
Hi SamlamOnFire.

I'm an Oom Yung Doe member who's been active in editing the article for some time -- in general it seems that talking over changes to the article on the talk page, and being a bit conservative, is the only way to make progress. As with other controversial Wikipedia articles, large edits that aren't communicated to other editors are likely to just get reverted without further discussion. It's slow and frustrating, but using that method, solidly policy-based edits are likely to eventually succeed even if some of the other editors really don't like them.

Going back and forth making edits and reverting them is highly, highly frowned upon. See WP:EW.

For the Robert Ludden section, my advice would be go back to original sources, try to split up the citations into individual citations attached to particular statements, and then try to reword things to match (both factually and in tone) the actual fact of the matter. I think the existing section does a halfway decent job of communicating the facts, but it could also be a lot better (and there's not a lot of reason for the section to exist other than that critics of the school have pointed to those events in the past). How do you see it?

Subverdor (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)