User talk:Africanus (usurped)

It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content from Cato the Younger. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Independence Day (United States)
Your recent edit to Independence Day (United States) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot4 22:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Independence Day (United States), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Gogo Dodo 00:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Independence Day (United States), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Lost 15:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page)-Lost Tell me, if you set out the Mona Lisa with a variety of paintbrushes, paints, spray paints, etc. next to it, and then left a sign that said, "Please improve me", what right do you have to call my doodling vandalism? How can you do the same when we're referring to something, I think we can all agree, quite a few levels of magnitude down from any art? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Africanus (talk • contribs)
 * You should be aware of the wikipedia policies and guidelines especially after being warned repeatedly. Please see WP:NOR and WP:POINT. I have reported you at WP:AIV -- Lost 15:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your comments
I read your comments here, here and here. It looks like you have a problem with people relying upon the articles in wikipedia and you are making edits to prove your point. Since you are a new editor, let me point out some things to you - As you well know, wikipedia can be edited by anyone. And as you also now well know, we have a system that whenever any obvious vandalism is spotted (like your edits to the above article), it gets reverted very soon and vandals are warned accordingly.

Wikipedia does have a content disclaimer that you may like to go through. Please understand that this is a collaborative project. Even if we are amateurs, it does not stop us from collectively using our strengths to make the articles very informative. As far as reliability is concerned, verifiability is also a policy here and is taken very seriously. An article that cannot be verified is deleted. So that makes the project reliable as well. Of course, its an iterative process and there is always further scope for improvement.

Finally, we have about 1000 featured articles, which undergo a thorough peer review and which we believe are our best.

I hope my rather long message makes sense to you and you join hands in making the articles even better -- Lost 16:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I do appreciate you taking the time to write that message, Lost, I do. I would have responded sooner, but as you can see I was in time out. Not entirely without justification, it is true. Or at least, would be true if not for the very contradictory policies of this site. I can't seem to figure out if it's supposed to be edited by everyone or not. Your 1000 featured articles may indeed be the very finest man has ever seen. However, there is no way of knowing this. The peer review process does not involve experts on the subject matter, just more of the same, "Whatever the group thinks must be right" approach to facts. Also, the number is fairly unimpressive considering that it amounts to approximately .08% of the Wikipedia. Would you trust a reference source that touts a .08% "guaranteed" accuracy rate? Africanus 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, this is an invitation for you to join hands and make the articles of your expertise better. But please do take the time to read policies and guidelines first. The site can be edited by anybody, but vandals are shunned rather quickly -- Lost(talk) 19:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

An admirable sentiment. Let's say that there was an article on, say, myself. I could reasonably be expected to be an expert on my own life. So let's say that I notice errors - incorrect birth day or place, that type of thing. So I change them. Shortly after I do, a Wikipedian reverts the changes. Obviously this is upsetting to me. The information is incorrect, I know that it is, but I find that I cannot overwhelm the groupthink by such a foolish thing as accuracy. Or let's say that I'm Steven Hawking, and happen to notice problems with a page on black holes. Again, I run up against the same issues. Let's say those opposite to me are high school physics students. Any rational person would argue that my entries ought to have a slight bit more weight. Regrettably, they have the ultimate weapon on Wikipedia - numbers. They can call on their friends to overwhelm me, and I will eventually give up due to the inanity of the entire process. I certainly can't go to the admins with the issue, because in the admittedly "anti-credentialist" atmosphere of Wikipedia, my wheelchair bound pleas would be meaningless.

No, this is not something to be supported, but condemned. Granted, I would never argue for the destruction of Wikipedia. I only want it to stop being used as a source, for it to have a disclaimer on each and every page that the information should not be trusted, and in my wildest dreams, perhaps it would give up the encyclopedia title. Still, I don't think that the disclaimer request is so outlandish. Africanus 20:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok this is the last time I am replying to you unless you read the specific policies before passing judgements:


 * 1) Regarding your birthdate etc. read: WP:V
 * 2) Regarding Stephen Hawking's example, read: WP:RS
 * 3) About you removing others' comments from your talk page: WP:VANDAL

I have so far assumed good faith with you, but there is also a guideline about feeding the troll, so unless you go through the relevant policies, this discussion is over -- Lost(talk) 20:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I use this example not out of the ravings of a feverish mind, but because it has happened, as you may be aware. People being implicated in assassinations, that kind of thing.
 * 2) This is also a very plausible scenario, given the anonymous nature of Wikipedia. You may very well be Steven Hawking.
 * 3) If I have removed someone's comments from my talk page I can assure you that it was purely from my own ignorance. I have no interest in censorship. Were I to remove comments I would probably begin with my warnings, blocking notification, etc. I would never, for instance, use administrator privileges to delete articles and place year long limits on their recreation.

There are also very detailed policies in most countries involving murder. However, nations do not go about posting these laws and then providing every citizen with a loaded weapon, only to cry that it's not their fault - we have laws against that sort of thing. I have gone through the policies before posting, and I am aware of them. I also do not consider myself a mythical creature. However, you are certainly not coerced into posting on my talk page, and if you decide that you no longer wish to then a pleasant day to you. Africanus 20:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Last warning
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Bertrand GRONDIN 16:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked You have been blocked for vandalism for 24 hours. To contest this block, add the text  on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism. Sam Blanning(talk) 16:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of erasing warnings on my own page, Mr. Blanning. Such a thing is absurd. As absurd as, say, deleting part of an entry about the motivation of vandals on the grounds that the person who updated it is a vandal. It stands to reason that such a person might be in a far better position to argue what a vandals motivation might be than, really, anyone else. Africanus 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)