User talk:Backedupinfo

May 2011
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jonah. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ben Ben (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The edits I made to the jonah page were not vandalism and I was correcting obviously incorrect information with links and references to other wiki pages. Please view sperm whales and view the section labeled 'jaws and teeth'. Sperm whales don't chew or tear up their food, in fact they swallow their food whole. Also without an upper pallet of teeth it would be difficult to do anything but. Also they eat 400lb. squid, saying they can't on one page and then on saying they can on their own page is ridiculous.Backedupinfo 06:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am afraid your personal experience is not a verifiable reference that can be used in an article, but rather original research that is outside the scope of Wikipedia. That said, when your edit of a page has been reverted, please don't engage in revert warring; instead, discuss the changes on an appropriate talk page. (And personal attacks don't make your argument any stronger.) For editing disputes, Wikipedia has the three revert rule - a user may not perform a revert on the same article more than three times within 24 hours, except in case of vandalism. Users who violate this rule, or otherwise engage in revert warring, may be blocked from editing. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You have just violated the three revert rule, and so you may now be blocked from editing unless you cease editing the article immediately. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now reported you for revert warring. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't make unwarranted accusations against other users. I am NOT . - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I get that you have personal opinions on this. I am sorry that the true facts don't fit with those opinions. But honestly that has happened to me many times while I got my first few degrees and still happens today. It is part of learning. The important thing is that you continue learning. Don't let personal beliefs get in the way of that because then you become close minded and stop learning.

--Backedupinfo 09:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For the second time, stop accusing me and/or Ben Ben of sockpuppetry. Just like edit warring may be a ground for blocking, so are personal attacks. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

/Sigh you don't think that telling me I should 'read it twice' is the same thing? Or how about indicating that I was saying Jonah was a squid or a molusc when it was obvious I was only providing quotes.

Be careful here, if you can actually get me banned for that, I would imagine they can read your posts as well.

--Backedupinfo 09:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The main point is that the reference must directly support the claim you want to make in the article. Making inferences not actually present in the source would constitute original research or synthesis. You really need to review the policies of Wikipedia:
 * Verifiability (and the related guideline on what constitutes a reliable source)
 * No original research


 * From Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Backedupinfo, this is a collaborative project. Repeatedly insisting that your preferred version of an article must stay and accusing your fellow volunteers of malfeasance without evidence are not acceptable, and your account may be blocked if you continue. Mike Rosoft or User:Ben Ben should have started a discussion at Talk:Jonah where all interested editors may express their points and discuss the references presented. If you find yourself in any similar situation in the future, please availe yourself of the Discussion link at the top of every page. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mike Rosoft / Ben Ben


A tag has been placed on Mike Rosoft / Ben Ben requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Derfel73 (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Mike Rosoft
You accidentally placed the report in mainspace, so I went ahead and moved it. I cleaned it up a little to conform to the normal nomination. MrKIA11 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I am new to Wikipedia and I am still learning --Backedupinfo 19:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Sperm whales
Take your cases to Talk:Sperm whale or Talk:Jonah. More people will be able to help you there.

And sources must be reliable, like NY times, an encyclopedia (book form), or an official government report. Some sources are not reliable, and should not be used in an article.

And I suggest you listen to Ben Ben and Mike Rosoft on watching your words. Personal attacks can result in a block. Thank you. --43?9enter ★☭ 00:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Disclaimer after seeing the SPI: I am not a sockpuppet. --43?9enter ★☭ 00:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)