User talk:BFritzen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Regarding edits made during May 14, 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. John254 00:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I am but one and they are many. Don't threaten to block someone without knowing anything about the revisions. I simply reverted to versions without a blatantly "Sneaky Vandalism" link that attacks the integrity of Wikipedia.
- Describing good faith edits as "vandalism" is uncivil, and edit warring is disruptive. You must cease such misconduct immediately, or you WILL be blocked. John254 01:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
So again a threat for revising. You use the term "good faith" revisions. Please explain. I am quite curious as to how adding inaccurate material (aka "sneaky vandalism" by Wikipedia) and links used to discredit inventors is "Good Faith."
I removed these "sources" and replaced them with accurate, verifiable, legitimate sources such as MIT, the Smithsonian, and the Federal Highway Administration among others. Did you read the discussion on the G Morgan page at all? You threaten me because I erased unverifiable junk from www33.brinkster.com and replaced it with accurate information from the US, Canadian, and British Patent Offices, and you threaten to ban me!?!!
Am I in some strange alternate universe? This klan comes at those articles en masse to protect their racist ideology and delete accurate information in the name of 1 fictional website. And you are blaming me of vandalism? You seem to have a good grasp of Wikipedia, how then can you just jump on the new guy simply because I make noise about a group of individuals discrediting people of certain heritage.
If you don't believe me then search www33.brinkster.com in Wikipedia and note that EVERY reference is used to discredit those of African heritage. All the information reentered in those "reversions" are provided by this site and this site only. Or links to blank Wiki pages. I eliminated the false information that is provided and replace it with accurate.
So you want to ban me? Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.--BFritzen 22:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Even if the information provided by the users who you are edit warring against is not accurate, I see no evidence that it is deliberately inaccurate. Only the intentional insertion of misinformation is "vandalism"; all other concerns over accuracy are content disputes. Rather than engaging in an edit war, please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for an explanation of how such content disputes are handled. John254 02:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You are coming at me with the same thing. This is vandalism and I have stopped the editing war as frustrating. It is deliberately inaccurate. On the discussion page, I ask for legitimate sources to refute MIT, Smithsonian, et al., in order to come to a compromise or at least get legitimate source material. So editing my information out and replacing it (however it is done) is still "sneaky vandalism" as defined by Wikipedia [[1]] Sneaky vandalism
- Vandalism which is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages.--BFritzen 22:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that explains quite succinctly that these people have reverted legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Pardon me for being incredulous, but it seems as if you haven't taken a gander at the discussion page(s) in question.--BFritzen 22:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Who wrote the above? Please sign your posts. - Jeeny Talk 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 02:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Philip Emeagwali myths" link
Please stop removing the external link [2] without specific justification. I am not qualified to judge the accuracy of other Brinkster pages, but the Emeagwali one is spot-on. If you can refute any of its information using reliable sources, you are most welcome to do so. Failing that, leave the link alone and let readers make up their own minds. Hqb 09:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Refuted the stormfront website, satisfied?--BFritzen 13:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You haven't even started refuting anything: you merely reasserted, without a shred of further documentation, some of the unsupportable claims that the "PE Myths" page looks into. The link stays. Hqb 18:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I put in contradictory references and should therefore stay so that readers can make a decision for themselves. Of course, side by side (and I am not talking uspto.gov here) readers who view material from the Smithsonian or From Brinkster will tend to believe the in more recognizable/ reliable source.
As far as refuting the claims such as the "Motorist" magazine (on brinkster) that I have yet to find a reference to, I let the MIT article and the others speak for themselves, I don't need to put forth opinionated information, I let those links present the case that is completely opposite.--BFritzen 18:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No personal attacks
Regarding your comments at User talk:KelleyCook, you will find that attacking other editors will get you blocked from editing Wikipedia rather quickly. Comment on content, not on the contributor. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I agree with you on the brinkster link, but you have to calm down, and you will find it easier to get consensus for your arguments. --Ezeu 22:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted those, bit heated, she did delete my documented material though. --BFritzen 22:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Garrett A. Morgan
I will wait until KelleyCook responds to the comments in the talk page, then I'll consider reverting it back to your version. In the meanwhile, just be patient as I am unclear on what the dispute is. Aquarius • talk 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Little context in James Hoge
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on James Hoge, by Hqb, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because James Hoge is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting James Hoge, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate James Hoge itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
