User talk:Bonkmann

September 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Fort Hill High School has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\byoutube\.com' (link(s): http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=uFlr5MFe-Og). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. TerriersFan (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Think about it
Hi! I've seen that you have made several nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Just consider this: Many people spend lots of their time here, creating and improving articles for the public's use. Any time that you have the urge to vandalize or delete content, think of all the people that spend their time trying to improve and better the information on Wikipedia. If you feel that you must do something on Wikipedia, instead of vandalizing this information, think of expanding and making it better. Think of this the next time that you hit the Edit this Page button. See also Avoid the word "vandal". --  Ṝέđ ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ  Drop me a line''' 15:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

To TerriersFan & ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ --- I'm not sure why my legitimate additions were removed then? If you look back through the log, I made additions that were fair and used references. I only removed the section on "alleged" racism because the brief there didn't state the facts of the matter. And, I only did that (again view the logs) after my "constructive" additions were deleted. Just as the Washington Post, that blurb was clearly one-sided and extremely biased. And, there was no mention of the *fact* that Dunbars team wrecked a local bathroom before the game. Nor did it mention that Coach Jeffries came into Cumberland with the intent on being "cheated" as he stated in the video, I also referenced (indirectly), before the game began. It's a shame that Wikipedia is hell-bent on distorting the facts. Is that the case?

Also, what happened to innocent until proven guilty, huh? This site should display FACTS not allegations.Bonkmann (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Alleged' is still notable. The Duke lacrosse players were 'alleged' to have raped that girl, and it is still in Wikipedia. Also, see WP:NPOV. Please read that before making statements. Cheers,  Ṝέđ ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ  Drop me a line''' 16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are not happy with the Washington Post reporting either take it up with them or find another, better source. The Urinal damage is frankly trivial and your YouTube comment was unencyclopaedic. If you are not happy, then take it to the article talk page and attempt to attain a consensus. Meanwhile, if you remove this section again, you will be blocked from editing. TerriersFan (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bonkmann (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC) To ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ --- Duke is not a fair analogy. In that case, the students were identified individually, by name. The school's reputation might've been affected, but the individuals were the ones being "punished", not the student body as a whole. Also, in that case the students were exonerated.

In this case, you're contributing to the persecution of an entire school for the "alleged" actions of only a few. Your insensitivity is affecting the lives of young INNOCENT children. The one or two bad apples, if there really is any truth to these allegations, are left unscathed. Not to mention the publicity of this whole "alleged" event is inciting hatred -- that wasn't here to begin with! Please, stop it. Don't contribute to the destruction of a decent school in a decent community. Come visit Cumberland sometime and see for yourselves before you cast judgment. I was taught never to stereotype.

Look, I'd be a fool to say prejudice was non-existent. I'd be even more foolish to sit idly by and just allow it to potentially ruin the lives of innocent young kids. Don't help it along. Please.

Bonkmann (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC) TerriersFan said, "The Urinal damage is frankly trivial and your YouTube comment was unencyclopaedic." How is something that demonstrates the character of the allegorists trivial? As for the YouTube comment, that was as factual as you can get; it was live video and shows the team taunting the crowd and jumping around as they walked off the field. This after stating they "feared for their safety". The person that wrote the Washington Post article wasn't even at the game! Coach Jeffries called him, explained his version of what happened and now it's fact??? I understand this site needs to be impartial and unbiased. Why does that only apply to some people's opinions and not others?