User talk:Dash10

Hello Dash10,

It is time to open a dialogue here, given the past week's revert war on the Kola Boof page, which is a waste of time for us both, and also a violation of Wikipedia policy (3RR). My proposal to you is that we try to agree to work together, to reach a consensus, in the edit process. We can discuss each edit point briefly on the talk page. I will wait a day or so, without reverting, to give you a chance to see this invitation. Then we can see if consensus might be possible.

But first, I have to say that I think the burden of explanation should be on you, since you have made a week's worth of reversions, as a new user, with absolutely no explanation. And the reversions you have made are simply the same exact reversion back to a May 5, 2006 version by Fermico2, who I believe may have been banned for making legal threats. The Fermico2 reversions had also undone much proper edit work by multiple editors, so that edit to which you have been consistently reverting back to does not seem proper, especially with no explanation at all from you.

Since your reversion edits amount mostly to a large amount of deletions of sections, of detail, of wikilinks, and of source reference citations, I am basing my argument, that you have the burden of explanation, on this Wikipedia standard, here, Avoiding_common_mistakes, which says:

"'Deleting without justifying. Deleting anything that isn't trivial requires some words of justification in the edit summary or on the talk page. If the justification is presented on the talk page, you can simply write 'See talk:' in the edit summary box.'"

I will open a section heading at the bottom of the Talk:Kola Boof Discussion page, asking you first to explain your reversions. Then if you respond, I will try to take each edit point by point, in good faith. Please respond.

I presume that you will be logging on to check this article soon, in anticipation of the ongoing revert war in progress, so I think a day or so is adequate time for you to see and respond on the Discussion page.Steven Russell 05:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Response
I am Fermico2.

Kola Boof herself has contacted Wikipedia Administrators and they agreed with her about your changes.


 * 1) 1--You do not have permission to use the COPYRIGHT-PROTECTED cover of "Nile River Woman" in her article. That is infringement and Wikipedia left you a message informing you of that last time.  Neither Boof nor her publisher wants that photos used.


 * 1) 2--Ms. Boof wants as little written about Osama Bin Laden in the article as possible. Only that she was involved with him against her will.  She detests and was greatly disgusted by your focus on something that does not represent who she is or what her work is about, not to mention, her life and her children's lives have been in danger because of her association with that man.


 * 1) 3--It is clear that you, like so many, are an enemy of this woman and have no interest in her work or what she's about, but would rather carry on speculation about "gossipy" issues in her life, and naturally, the author doesn't like what you are posting and doesn't want to be represented that way.

FERMICO2

ALSO NOTE that Wikipedia felt your article was TOO LONG and preferred the streamlined "to the point" article that Kola Boof feels represents what she is about and what her life is about.

Wikipedia agrees that she should have a great deal of say in what is written on this site about her, since it's HER LIFE being portrayed.

Your article doesn't portray her life, but is a veiled attack.

Hello Dash10/Fermico2,

Thank you for copying your own response onto the talk page of the Kola Boof article in question. I will address all further discussion over there, relevant to that article. Please be advised to sign all your comments with four tildes in a row, this character (~), to display your user name and date and time of your comments. Steven Russell 18:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)