User talk:ResearcherInFlorida

Please comment on my talk page. ResearcherInFlorida (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to George W. Bush substance abuse controversy, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: George W. Bush substance abuse controversy was changed by ResearcherInFlorida (u) (t) deleting 13348 characters on 2009-05-18T07:37:20+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I substituted a Db-g10 tag on this article and this is a false positive. ResearcherInFlorida (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a well-established article cannot be speedily deleted. Take this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Academic Challenger (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thank you. ResearcherInFlorida (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush alcohol use

Please do not blank or redirect articles while they are currently nominated for deletion. --auburnpilot talk 22:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to merge it. All the material is now in Early life of George W. Bush ResearcherInFlorida (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your unilateral action is seriously improper. Many of us disagree with your expungement of this material from Wikipedia. This project is based on collaborative editing, and you can't just undo many people's work, over a period of years, because you personally hold a contrary opinion. It's now going to take some effort just to undo the damage you've caused. If you wish to pursue your opinion in good faith, I strongly recommend that you follow the course that was pointed out to you, and that you've begun, of presenting the issue to the community through AfD. JamesMLane t c 22:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the course that was pointed out by several in the AfD discussion to remove poorly sourced BLP material and will continue to do so if needed. I think the consensus is to merge or keep and as we see in Early life of George W. Bush we can merge the entire article. A simple rule of thumb that you should use is do you believe allegations of Larry Sinclair belong in an Barack Obama substance abuse controversy article. If not, then this should be no different. ResearcherInFlorida (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you completely fouled up the ongoing AfD. Issues of particular statements -- whether they comply with BLP -- can be considered on the talk page of the individual article. You can delete a statement that you consider to be noncompliant, under the WP:BRD method. You went far beyond that, however. I'm still trying to track all your actions, but apparently you engaged in a mass deletion of well-sourced information from the substance abuse article, then you moved what was left to a new "alcohol" title, then you moved some of that to the early life article, then you turned your own new article into a redirect. You thus achieved the result you wanted from the AfD without the bothersome necessity of getting anyone else's concurrence. That is totally improper. You are not entitled to act on your own conclusion about what you think the consensus at the AfD is -- there's a process for closing it, which occurs after at least five days and is done by an uninvolved editor.

I'm going to try to untangle this mess and restore the status quo of the article structure so that the AfD can proceed sensibly. If you engage in further unilateral actions I will have to seek sanctions against you. We have a policy of not biting the newbies, which is the only reason I'm not doing more now, but you must recognize the role of collaborative editing and consensus-building in this project. It's probably not like other endeavors you're familiar with. You are entitled to your opinions, and to some extent you are entitled to act on them, but you must constantly bear in mind that other people may well disagree with you, and you are not entitled to steamroll our views simply by asserting that your interpretation of policy is correct. JamesMLane t c 22:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summaries should explain specifically which material I removed and why I did so. Aside from you and I believe 1 other person, most of the other participants were in support of removing unencyclopedic information and the BLP policy seems to support that. I am interested in which particular information you feel should be in the article. An unfounded allegation is not encyclopedic nor is a "no comment" rigorous proof of any substance abuse. ResearcherInFlorida (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just aren't paying attention, I'm afraid. I could use your edit summaries to restore the status quo but only by fouling up the article history. As for your description of the opinions expressed in the AfD, please note what I told you: An AfD continues for five days, so at this point no one would be justified in deciding how to resolve it, but even after the five days it must be closed by an uninvolved person, which you manifestly aren't. JamesMLane t c 23:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, first of all welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate your desire to improve this article, but unfortunately you have gone about it all wrong. You cannot make major changes - like deleting half an article & changing the entire scope of it - without clear and unambiguous consensus. Please feel free to make small changes to the article, including removing unsourced statements, but please do not delete half the article because you don't like it. Doing so again, without achieving consensus first, will be considered vandalism. Additionally, making controversial name changes to articles cannot be done without consensus.

Furthermore, only an admin can close an AfD and no one can close there own AfD. Please do not interfere with the process in this manner again. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of vandalism over this is clearly a bullying tactic. ResearcherInFlorida (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest rules violation

You created the article Barack Obama substance abuse controversy -- arguably in violation of WP:POINT. More important, however, is that, when another editor tagged it for speedy deletion, you removed the tag. Did you read the tag before removing it? It says, in boldface no less, "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself."

I am restoring the tag. Please do not remove it again. Go read it if you want to know how to proceed.

I realize that you are new to Wikipedia, but you must bear in mind that this project has been running for several years. To coordinate the actions of thousands of volunteers in creating and maintaining almost three million articles, many on controversial subjects, we have developed and we now apply general policies, guidelines, and procedures. You need to be a wee bit more careful about respecting such long-standing rules before you just barge in and change things in accordance with your personal opinion. JamesMLane t c 01:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempted bullying and assumption of bad faith does not reflect well on this project. ResearcherInFlorida (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Barack Obama substance abuse controversy

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Barack Obama substance abuse controversy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This seems to be nothing but disparaging content that wouldn't hold up at the main article(s) on Obama which are well-sourced and neutral. I would have used CSD under attack page but the does seem to be some sources so I think that CSD wouldn't apply to this. Any usable cntent should be merged to one of the main Obama articles.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- Banjeboi 03:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Barack Obama substance abuse controversy

I have nominated Barack Obama substance abuse controversy, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama substance abuse controversy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Vicenarian (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Barack Obama substance abuse controversy

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

I don't feel the speedy deletion of your Obama article as a "blatant attack page" was actually justified, however it is probably for the best as that article stood no chance of survival anyway.

There is a slim chance that such an article could stand up, but only if very well done and focused primarily on how drug revelations did/did not affect his campaign/political career. If you really want this article to exist, I suggestion you create it in your user space first, making sure to avoid attack language and non-credible claims, and then have some experienced editors look over it before even considering moving it to the main space. Also it would need a better title since there is no real 'controversy.'

If you continue your current behavior of editing to make a POINT, you will get nowhere and likely get yourself banned. This is not a threat, but actually is an attempt to help you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]