User talk:I'mDown/Archive 1

Archive 1

---

Feel free to talk.

Re: How dare you

Wikipedia's articles are not censored. What that means is that just because someone might find something offensive or inappropriate is not a reason to remove something from an article. (If that thing is not a helpful addition to the article in question, then it can be removed — that's not censorship.) However, Wikipedia has many, many rules regarding talk page interaction that are meant to foster civil discourse. It also has specific rules regarding what can be written about living persons that are meant to back up our core policies of attribution to reliable sources. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree. I think there are several narratives that can and should be written into the Obama article; I think the Rezko deal and the stock issues could possibly now be successfully written into prose, even though both appear to have a relatively favorable end. (Though, for the record, I don't agree on the Drudge thing — he's pretty much the definition of an unreliable source. He's so anxious to be the first to "break" something, especially when it's negative towards Democrats considering his political leanings, that he's very often flat-out wrong or misleading. He also doesn't have to or pledge to adhere to any journalistic principles, unlike an organization like the New York Times or the Washington Times, where their standards are clearly written and delineated. That's enough of my ranting, though.) Anyway, I'm not saying you can't express your opinion — I'm simply saying that you have to express it in a civil way, much as you did with your response to my comment, which I greatly appreciate. If someone responds in an uncivil manner to you and I don't notice it, please let me know and I'll leave a similar comment with them. This isn't a taking sides issue, it's a "maintaining civil discourse" issue, which I think benefits all of us. Oh, and I don't disagree that lots of other articles have an inappropriate level of criticism with regard to the rest of the article, and they should be addressed. Unfortunately, with a lot of the articles you named and other similar ones, that's very difficult because consensus is difficult to achieve on such divisive topics. Barack Obama is what's termed a featured article, which requires that it be "stable", so you'll generally find more opposition to adding in recent topics that may or may not end up being notable in the long-run (which is supposed to be our aim as an encyclopedia). Anyway, that's enough from me. I do encourage you to keep discussing on the talk page, but to do so civilly, as you have done with me. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions or need any help. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Pipil

You recently changed racial population statistics on the Pipil article. Do you have a quotable dated source that you could "attach" to the paragraph? Thanks. WBardwin 03:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Talk:300 (film)

In reference to your recent edit at Talk:300 (film), which included the comment "SkullyD wow you are an idiot, saying Persians aren't Iranian is like saying Saxons aren't Germanic, your comments amaze me as to how stupid they sound, I can only hope you speak of ignorance," I would like to remind you to remain WP:CIVIL in all discussions. Calling another editor stupid is not a proper way to counter a differing opinion, and it is certainly not a way to enter into a debate. Your argument may be correct, but you run the risk of violating WP:ATTACK with highly offensive statements, something that may be reverted on suspicion of vandalism in the future. Please check yourself next time. Thank you. María (habla conmigo) 14:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've also noted how you changed some of your language, reverting out calling someone a fool. Fool they may be, but the vest weapon to dispute the words or positions of your fellow editors is through politeness and citation. You've done enough editing to know that the warning that Maria gave you was pretty much the only one you are going to get, as editors will look at your talk page history and tag you with civility and attack warnings for future incidents. Some admins take a dimmer view, and will just block you. Sometimes, the editors drive me batshit as well, but I've learned (and sometimes still have to take a refresher course) to keep it civil. Don't worry, you will, too. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page was uncalled for and rude. I will not warn you of civil behavior again; next time I will simply report you. María (habla conmigo) 19:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your behavior in the 300 article is unacceptable, for which you have been counseled on at least 3 prior occasions. Consider this your final warning. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Zainichi Korean

In a recent edit, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect other forms of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, just ask anyone on Wikipedia and they will help you. Thank you. cab 22:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)