User talk:Womulee

April 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. The edit in question is located here. Grsz 11 22:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it isn't personal analysis. its a fact that his spiritual advsior is linked to farrakhan.

It isn't a fact that's relevant to Obama's article. A biography about Obama contains information about Obama, and not who his connections may be connected to. I'm sure we could find all kinds of people he's connected to, but none of them are relevant to him. Please don't add that in again. Grsz 11 22:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that Wright is tainted by his approving view of Farrakan and the award by the Trumpet. And unlike some of the details of Wright's sermons Obama cannot plausibly deny being aware of this facet of his church. Grsz11 is simply wrong so say that the known views and associations of those Obama knowingly chose to associate himself with are not relevant to his biography. And no meaningful change will occur to the article without depleting the reverts of those trying to keep it from happening. Obey 3RR -- it's the speed limit -- but do not be distracted by bogus demands that agreement from editors such as Scjessey be obtained prior to making changes. Scjessey (~"The article contains little criticism of Obama because there is so little to criticise"~ and ~"I can't vote for Obama -- that proves I'm unbiased and neutral"~) and his like will never agree to the necessary changes. Andyvphil (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]