Talk:Obama (disambiguation)/Archive 1

message: Your recent move of Obama states that you did so per the discussion on the talk page. This is incorrect, as the discussion on the talk page does not indicate anywhere a consensus to redirect Obama to Barrack Obama. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Please explain your blatant ignoring of the discussion there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your portrayal is disingenuous.  "Quite the opposite" is quite inaccurate (a majority support the DAB), and despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy, the majority also happens to have made their case clearly with policy rationale and pertinent examples.  Also, if you are going to be involved in a naming concern, you could at least learn how to spell the subject's name: "Barack."  Not "Barak" or "Barrack." Italiavivi 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it disingenuous to say that there was no consensus on the talk page regarding whether Obama should be redirected to Barrack Obama? And I was questioning your action, not discussing the content of a particular article. You can't simply brush this off when you took a unilateral action which was not supported by consensus. And making comments about a typo is rude to say the least. The question here is not whether or not there should be a dab page, but whether there was enough support to have the dab page at Obama (disambiguation) instead of Obama. I'd say that a prime minister of a country is much more important than a US senator who may not even be nominated by his party to run for president. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, there has been no real discussion on this talk page; just some people saying "it belongs here" and moving it, and others saying "it belongs there" and moving it back.  I still don't understand why people insist on unilaterally moving the page from Obama to Obama (disambiguation).  It reeks of WP:BIAS and despite the popularity of the potential nominee in his home country, I don't see how it justifies a default disambiguation over other equally prominent people (a sitting prime minister!) and usage in at least two separate nations as a common name.  The page Obama was the disambiguation to start with, and there is no reason for the move without discussing it at WP:RM.  If it is such an open/shut case as some people seem to think, then all that is lost by taking the discussion there is four or five days waiting for the admin to close the official discussion.  Until then, we will be embroiled in a wheel war, I guess. Neier 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The users who've advocated an Obama (DAB) weren't anymore "unilateral" than you and Nihonjoe's little move-protect dance just now.  The only difference between DAB advocates and you two is that the DAB advocates can't enforce their preference via page protection.  I added some bolding above to assist you in your misconceptions and misrepresentation of Talk discussion; this "unilateral" talk is obvious, transparent posturing on your part. Italiavivi 23:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama 

message: As people keep moving this article back and forth, I have protecting it from being moved for seven days while we hold a discussion over where this article should be. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nihonjoe, your protection while involved in the dispute was completely inappropriate. Italiavivi 23:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move protection 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support per reasons outlined above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree with that. Tvoz |talk 19:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this whole discussion is bullshit and needs to be scrapped. The admin initiator of all this bullshit should unprotect the page and recuse himself from this mess that he created. No consensus will be gained from this "survey" as I refuse to participate in what seems to be a game of bias. Consensus seems to have been reached earlier in the page and this opposing admin went against consensus, went against policy and went against common sense in rigging up this bloated and unwieldy discussion. Turtlescrubber 21:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey