User talk:JSpung/Archive 2

Archived content
My talk page content from before 2015 has been archived, and can be found here. Thanks, JSpung (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You're wrong
Let me have it like I did. Thank you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.17.8 (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert Sears (physician)
Hello. My page is filled with bias and one-sided hate comments. None of these people know me or have ever met me. Is there a way I can prevent such bias information? Can I just have my page deleted? These writers clearly are violating the purpose of Wikipedia DrBobSears (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. On Wikipedia, anyone can edit any page. However, if new information is added, it must be neutral and verifiable. Please see the discussion on your talk page, including this excerpt from Brangifer: "While editors obviously have their own POV and thoughts, nobody hates you. That is not what drives our editing. Your actions and POV are controversial and well-documented, and that's what we do here. We tell the whole story, without whitewashing. We're documenting your life, career, and fate." If you find specific factual errors or content that is not neutral and verifiable, please use the article's talk page to discuss your concern. JSpung (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

List of the Beatles' live performances
Hey, thanks for being on the lookout for vandalism and whatnot, but the removing of the dates from List of the Beatles' live performances was deliberate. The idea is, as articles are created on the Beatles' tours, to remove the dates from the main list and include a link to the tour article, just to cut down on the size and increase the article's manageability. As it stands now, most of the dates are on the page, but some are just links to the main article. I think it should either go all one way or the other, and I thought cutting down on the list was best. I'll leave it as it stands for now, and I'd like to hear what you think about it. Thanks, Seltaeb Eht (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey there. Sorry about that, I have reverted my edit and restored yours. Thanks for the message! JSpung (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I can definitely see how that could've been seen as vandalism, and I'll definitely try to explain my edits better in summaries. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidelines, I am a new editor and did not see this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.216.117 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your wrong
That woman is a velocoraptor artist dumo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thealmightypotatogod (talk • contribs) 21:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

really?
it;s true, play it yourself, then think about your choice

Whats the issue with Vancouver
I'm adding it as a terminated route, why do you keep removing it from virgin destinations list? inspector (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi I made the first change because of the note that was present on the page: "DO NOT ADD VANCOUVER - SERVICE ENDED 10/11 AND WILL NOT RESUME." However, I noticed that the article key has a Terminated entry, and undid my changes with the following note: "Undid revision 645759252 by JSpung (talk) as article key accounts for Terminated routes. Not sure why the note not to add Vancouver was present, but I have reverted my changes." Thanks. JSpung (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All good. inspector (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Juliet Sorensen
The Juliet Sorensen page is being used by someone not for biographical purposes but to make a personal attack. I am removing the personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didier Arnault (talk • contribs) 15:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. On Wikipedia, anyone can edit any page. However, if new information is added, it must be neutral and verifiable. The content your are removing is verifiable and should not be removed simply because you disagree with it. If you find specific factual errors or content that is not neutral and verifiable, please use the article's talk page to discuss your concern. JSpung (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Juliet Sorensen wiki, this is a biography of a living person. According to the BLP page, wikipedia pages should not be used for personal attacks, are supposed to be neutral, and should not engage in victimization of the individual, who also has a right to privacy. The removed material is a personal attack, not a balanced biographical feature. If necessary, I'd be happy to engage a Wikipedia editor on this subject. If you are a Wikipedia editor, then I believe this case needs attention. Please do not keep returning the attack paragraph to this biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didier Arnault (talk • contribs) 16:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The removed material is not a personal attack. Per Wikipedia policy, "criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." All of these criteria are met. The content you keep removing is "document[ing] in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject," which is encouraged by Wikipedia and is quoted directly from policy.


 * The same page notes that attack pages are "pages that are unsourced and negative in tone." I find the content to be sourced and neutral in tone, and therefore not an attack. Again, just because you don't like the content does not make it an attack. Take a look at An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing: "An article that is written about you should be editorially neutral. It will not take sides and will report both the good and the bad about you from verifiable and reliable sources" (emphasis mine). I am a Wikipedia editor, as you mentioned, and have dealt with this sort of thing before, most recently here. Please carefully review the links I have provided. Further removal of sourced content may result in a block from editing Wikipedia. JSpung (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Mel Breeden
Mel Breeden is a criminal, has arrest records to prove. He has taken advantage of me, and people need to know. Google him and you will find his many home foreclosures, delinquent credit card accounts and arrest records.

If you need to contact me with any questions, my name is Candace Linkenback, and my email is clinkenback@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.107.251 (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. On Wikipedia, anyone can edit any page. However, if new information is added, it must be neutral and verifiable. Your content reads like an attack and is not supported by any sources. If you can find a verifiable source and rewrite your addition in a neutral tone, the material may be added. JSpung (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Chaldean Pages
Hello, I am from the Chaldean culture and I am trying to change a lot of misinformation/false information which have been populated all over Chaldean Wikipedia pages by people called Assyrians. I do not understand why my edits keep getting reverted. The changes are necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaldeanEthnicity (talk • contribs) 18:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. On Wikipedia, anyone can edit any page. However, if new information is added, it must be neutral and verifiable. You did not cite any sources in your edit, specifically for "Ethnic Chaldeans make up the majority of Iraqi Christians (75-80%)." If you can find a verifiable source, the material may be added. Also, take a look at Chaldean Christians. If you find specific factual errors or content that is not neutral and verifiable, please use the article's talk page to discuss your concern. JSpung (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

We Chaldeans (who ARE NOT ETHNICALLY ASSYRIANS) but are ETHNICALLY CHALDEANS want to know who allowed Assyrians to go on all our Wikipedia pages and fill our people's Wikipedia pages with false information. Why didn't any editor stop them from doing that? ASsyrians have loaded and loaded Chaldean pages with misinformation (paragraphs after paragraphs of it), which means any attempt by Chaldeans to remove the paragraphs after paragraphs of misinformation will be seen as disruptive. Please explain to me how Chaldeans can correct our pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaldeanEthnicity (talk • contribs) 19:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the messages on your talk page for further detail about this issue. All of the content currently on the pages you are editing is neutral and verifiable and not demonstrated to be false. If you find specific factual errors or content that is not neutral and verifiable, please use the articles' talk pages (here and here) to discuss your concern. JSpung (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The information that you are trying to undo is all sourced to valid reliable sources. If you wish to refute this information, you will need to discuss the matter on the relevant talk pages, and provide your own reliable sources that contradict the sources cited. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that one of the talk pages interested in the Chaldean Catholic page is "Wikipedia Assyria." Even though the members of the Chaldean Catholic Church are Chaldeans with a very slight minority who are Assyrians. Assyrians are trying to own the Chaldean ethnicity and Church as Assyrian for their own political reasons and you guys are letting them do it. I am going to assume that is where all the false and false information regarding my people's Chaldean culture came from. I guarantee you that Wikipedia Assyria will refuse to state any of my facts are true, so the misinformation on my Chaldean people's pages will be allowed to continue. But, I will continue as you ask me to do. I am not allowing Assyrians to keep populating my people's pages with this false garbage. As you will see in all the Chaldean pages, Assyrians have listed information belitting Chaldeans, claiming we do not exist, claiming we only exist as Assyrians, etc it is obvious who has the agenda. And it is unfortunate that you are coming after Chaldeans for wanting to fix our people's pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaldeanEthnicity (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Chaldean Christian Page
I am offering two sources for the fact that members of the Chaldean Catholic Church are etnicially Chaldeans not Assyrians. The first is the book by a historian, "The Untold Story of Native Iraqis, Chaldean Mesopotamians 5300BC - Present" by Amer Hanna-Fatuhi and the second is "The Chaldean Liturgy: At the Gate of God" by Bishop Sarhad Jammo. Please explain why these sources are not sufficient, but the false sources provided by Assyrians is sufficient. Again, I will say that I am ethnically Chaldean and a member of the Chaldean Church, have been my whole life. I know my culture and who my people are better than you or Assyrians and I am providing credible sources. Please tell me what else is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaldeanEthnicity (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You removed the existing citation and replaced it with your own. Thank you for finding a source, but you cannot just delete existing content without discussing it. As has been said numerous times, you can bring this matter up on the talk page here, and discuss it with other editors. You may not just replace the existing content at your whim. For more information on editing Wikipedia, see Wikipedia's editing policy. JSpung (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Untold Story of Native Iraqis is a self-published volume of questionable value as a reliable source. It is a single author's interpretation of history with no evidence of any editorial review (including the bare minimum of correcting spelling errors). The Chaldean Liturgy may be more reliable, but the preview I've been able to see does not provide sufficient evidence to back up the sweeping changes you are trying to make. Perhaps the full book does; I invite you to mention it at the talk pages of the affected pages and let a discussion occur there. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@WikiDan61 I am confused?! The historian's book is not enough, but the source offered by Assyrians is a quote of a Chaldean Bishop from 1974 in an Assyrian magazine. There is no way to even verify that the Chaldean Bishop made that quote from a 1974 magazine. I have a letter from that same Bishop Bidawid, cited by Assyrians, from 2003 when Bishop Bidawid had become the head of the Chaldean Catholic Church asking Paul Bremer to recognize the ethnic Chaldeans (who make up 75-80% of Iraqi Christians) in the new Iraqi Government. I can quote that letter as well in my changes. Additionally, Chaldeans are recognized in the Iraqi Constitution as a nationality of people. Please review Article 125 of the Iraqi Constitution and please tell me does it or does it not recognize both Chaldeans AND Assyrians as separate nationalities & groups of people. The book offered by the historian Amer Hanna-Fatuhi is a very reliable source, as is the Iraqi Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaldeanEthnicity (talk • contribs) 21:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Please review the talking page for Chaldean Christians yourselves and you will see Assyrians blatantly referring to their disgust with Chaldeans claiming our own ethnicity. Additionally, on the talking page the Assyrians make it clear that they INTENTIONALLY are referring all Chaldean and Syriac pages (Syriacs are another ethnicity which Assyrians are falsely claiming as Assyrians) to Assyrian data and pages. Please explain to me how that was allowed and what good it will do for me to discuss with these people the issue of whether my people are ethnically Chaldeans or not? You both indicated to me initially that as long as I can site sources anyone can make edits. I have cited 2 books, plus I have a letter from the Head of the Chaldean Catholic Church indicating their members are ethnically Chaldean and the Iraqi Constitution specifically calls out Chaldeans as a nationality.
 * "You both indicated to me initially that as long as I can site sources anyone can make edits." No, I said that if you can find a verifiable source, the material may be added. However, this is not a license to delete existing valid and verifiable content without a discussion. As both WikiDan61 and I have repeatedly urged you, please take this debate to the article talk page. Most of the content on that page is several years old and may benefit from a civil discussion of your sources and perspective. However, continuing to debate this with me here will not affect the article, and will not be seen by other concerned editors. JSpung (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me if I have the discussion and the Assyrians say my facts are not true and there is no consensus, which I know there will not be as Assyrians have made it very clear they want to eliminate the Chaldean ethnicity, what then? Again, review Article 125 of the Iraqi Constitution, which was put together by experts in the field; if a Constitution says Chaldeans exist as a nationality not sure anything needs to be discussed. What happens if there is no consensus and I can offer numerous valid sources? Am I then allowed to change Wikipedia pages referencing my OWN culture to correct information or do people (such as Assyrians) who are outside my community get to decide what material is relevant on the page? I am offering verifiable sources, such as the Iraqi Constitution and a letter from the head of the Chaldean Catholic Church, so I should be able to add that information, correct?
 * There is no attempt here to deny that a Chaldean ethnicity might still exist; but clearly, an Assyrian ethnicity also exists, and Wikipedia must find a balance at representing the people of both ethnicities. You have been asked to suggest changes at the appropriate talk pages. If there are facets of the Wikipedia community who disagree with you, you may find there are equal facets who agree with you. You'll never know until you try. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No one is denying Assyrians exist as an ethnicity, but that is dealt with and defined on their own Assyrian Wikipedia pages. Please look up Assyrians (including their own church the Assyrian Church of the East) and you will find Wikipedia pages of their own discussing Assyrian ethnicity. No Chaldean is trying to delete or edit Assyrian pages to call them anything other than Assyrian. This is about Assyrians trying to deny Chaldeans our ethnicity in order to gain political power in Iraq. We are the majority of Iraqi Christians and in order to try to gain money, power, and possibly land in Iraq, Assyrians need to claim Chaldeans are actually Assyrians. Also, I reviewed one of the items cited by Assyrians to claim Chaldeans are ethnically Assyrians and I cannot verify the item at all, therefore, it is not a verifiable source. The item is the reference to Mar Raphael J Bidawid. The Assyrian Star. September–October, 1974:5; please tell me where and how you are able to verify this source? I am giving you verifiable sources and you will not accept that. I will have the discussion, but if it turns out as I know it will Chaldeans should be allowed to correct our Wikipedia pages with correct sourced information.

By the way, there is no Chaldeans "might" exist, we DO exist as an ethnicity and culture. The fact that you would even use those words is incredibly culturally offensive.

My question was not answered. The sources offered for saying that Chaldean Christians "are Assyrians" are not verifiable. I have tried verifying both sources and cannot do either. Can you please direct me to where these sources are verifiable? If you are going to adhere to the Wikipedia policy, then if this information cannot be verified through the offered "sources" the content should be removed. Also, one of the sources listed on the Chaldean Christians page verifies my statement that Chaldeans are the majority of Iraqi Christians, see the following link which has been listed on the page as a source. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7271828.stm

Gerda Nicholson
have added citation of article GERDA NICHOLSON, If there is a problem with something listed on her website, take to talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.27.80 (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, your source is the main page for the individual. Can you please link directly to the source of "she originally wanted to be an architect"? Thanks, JSpung (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I just want the world to see what EA is doing. They are just promoting bad gaming culture and are supported by *cough* 10yo *cough*. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noobcoder5 m (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Down and Dirty Duck Revert
Hey, you reverted my edit on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_and_Dirty_Duck#Cast

Just a heads up, the actual character name "is" Transvestite Fag, according to the in-film credits and imdb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072882/--Belligerent Possum (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Sorry about that, I have reverted my edits and removed my warning. Thanks for the message! JSpung (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

isn't edward iv considered a plantagenet
all the lancaster and york kings of england are considered plantagenet aren't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Floyd is awesome (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

why mongrels was edited
ok i removed that information under health to EDIT the false information. i provided sources and data. Why was it removed? ONE of you said and i quote " wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Mongrel because it did not appear constructive." How is correcting false information non constructive?????

i gave the links to the studies and the results TWICE

This has been shown in a recent study in June 1, 2013 by the Journal of american veterinary medical association[14] Where with a large study of mutts and purebreds it was shown that mutts have no less risk than a purebred does of genetic related disorders. It was found that mutts had a higher risk of cranial cruciate ligament tears than did their purebred counterparts and that while both are equally susceptible to genetic disorders Purebreds with genetic disorders were limited to certain bloodlines with the particular disorder.[15]

Populations are particularly vulnerable when the dogs bred are closely related. Inbreeding among purebreds has exposed various genetic health problems not always readily apparent in less uniform populations. Mixed-breed dogs are more genetically diverse due to the more haphazard nature of their parents' mating. However, "haphazard" is not the same as "random" to a geneticist. The offspring of such matings might be less likely to express certain genetic disorders because there might be a decreased chance that both parents carry the same detrimental recessive alleles, but some deleterious recessives occur across many seemingly unrelated breeds, and therefore merely mixing breeds is no guarantee of genetic health. Also, when two poor specimens are bred, the offspring could inherit the worst traits of both parents. This is commonly seen in dogs from puppy mills.[16]

http://avmajournals.avma.org/toc/javma/242/11

"June 1 Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) researchers studied the medical records of 62,750 dogs diagnosed with genetic disorders during a 15 year period.

The study, titled, Prevalence of inherited disorders among mixed-breed and purebred dogs: 27,254 cases (1995–2010), Studied prevalence of 24 genetic disorders in the population.

Ten disorders were found to be more common in purebred dogs, these disorders include dilated cardiomyopathy, elbow dysplasia cataracts and hypothyroidism. For thirteen disorders, including hip dysplasia, Cushing's disease, cancers, and luxating patellas, purebred dogs had no higher incidence than did mixed breed dogs. Mixed breed dogs had a higher prevalence of cranial cruciate ligament (CCL) tears than did purebred dogs.

According to the researchers, the study illustrates that for most heritable diseases mixed breeds confer no greater over all health. Heritable diseases clearly run in some pure bred lines, however according to the researchers, thirteen of the 24 diseases studied were present across the entire canine population prior to breeding for specific traits, and are therefore just as likely to show up in a mixed breed dog as a purebred.

Not mentioned in the research is that for many purebred dogs genetic tests are available for breeders to help them eliminate certain heritable diseases from the line. This option is highly unlikely to be utilized in a mixed dog breeding as these are often accidental.

Heritable diseases can be devastating for pet owners; knowing the history of a dog's lineage may provide a buffer against some of these issues. In-breeding has certainly led some breeds to have a high incidence for some diseases, and mixes derived from that breed can suffer from the same set of issues."

i would like to know where this bias is coming from that you would immediately knock down my information that i can back up and the other that was there cannot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broodyhound (talk • contribs) 22:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Your edit was reverted for removing existing content without an explanation. Regardless of whether your content is correct, you may not simply delete existing content and replace it with your own, as you did with your edit, which removed 1,496 characters of text. If you have an issue with the existing (presumed) reliable sources, or want to introduce new content, you need post on the talk page here, and discuss it with other editors. This is not the appropriate place to paste your content. JSpung (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I made a good edit
You reverted it to the original please revert it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.4.59 (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. You removed content in the "aka" section, and changed developer to "deveDHAFVDHVGHJGDERVHBAUJIKDUHVGIKDD". That's why it was marked not constructive. If you would like to test how editing works, please use the sandbox. Thanks, JSpung (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

May I post
The new 3ds has what nintendo calls super stable 3d on your new #ds page

luv you
uyhngf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.4.59 (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Eike Batista assets arrested
While my original edit to "Eike batista" Wikipedia entry did not enclose sources, the subject of the edit (the arrest of his luxury cars, cash, even a piano and cell phone by Brazilian Federal Police in order to guarantee payback to creditors) was widely covered by many news agencies. Here are a few:

http://odia.ig.com.br/noticia/rio-de-janeiro/2015-02-06/policia-federal-apreende-bens-do-empresario-eike-batista.html

http://revistaautoesporte.globo.com/Noticias/noticia/2015/02/policia-federal-apreende-seis-carros-na-casa-de-eike-batista.html

http://www.flatout.com.br/policia-federal-apreende-lamborghini-aventador-porsche-cayenne-e-mais-quatro-carros-de-eike-batista/

http://noticias.r7.com/carros/fotos/falido-eike-batista-perde-carroes-e-pode-acabar-em-modelo-popular-06022015

http://zh.clicrbs.com.br/rs/noticias/economia/noticia/2015/02/pf-faz-busca-e-apreensao-na-casa-de-eike-batista-4695272.html

177.125.233.76 (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Bruno
 * Hi there. Thanks for finding sources. All content added to Wikipedia must be neutral and verifiable. The lack of sources was why I removed your content, not because I didn't believe you. If you would like to add it again, citing the sources you have provided, that should be fine. You could also post on the article's talk page to discuss the addition with other editors. Also, feel free to check out some info about editing and style. Thanks. JSpung (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi
I am a PhD student in economic history. I am not a regular editor of Wikipedia but whilst reading through the page on Bretton Woods I noticed glaring factual inaccuracies in the paragraph on government intervention. Not only were the paragraphs I deleted contrary to the meaning of the section and uncited but they propagate untruths regarding the mechanisms of Bretton Woods. For example, one section argues that the system promoted free capital flows - a laughable assertion when Bretton Woods was the monetary system with the strictest capital controls of human history. I strongly advise you agree to my edits, because less informed readers might be taken in by the insidious falsehoods in this article.

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.186.25 (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Thanks for your efforts to keep Wikipedia accurate. However, deleting existing content without a discussion (or at least an explanation) is not the appropriate way to act on your concerns, and is a good way to get yourself blocked from editing Wikipedia further. Please see this policy about deleting content from Wikipedia. If, as you mentioned, you find that a source is not neutral and verifiable, please post on the article's talk page so that other editors can be engaged in the discussion. Please do not remove existing content outright. Thanks. JSpung (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Look below if you want sources that disprove these remarkable allegations. Ikenberry, G. (2003) “The Political Origins of Bretton Woods” in A Retrospective on the Bretton Woods System: Lessons for International Monetary Reform, ed by M. Bordo and B. Eichengreen, NBER. Skidelsky, R. (2003) “Keynes’s Road to Bretton Woods: An Essay in Interpretation” in Marc Flandreau et al. (eds.) International Financial History in the Twentieth Century. pp. 125-152. Tanner, J. (2003) “Bretton Woods and the European Neutrals, 1944-1973”. in M. Flandreau et al. (eds.) International Financial History in the Twentieth Century. pp. 153-168. Eichengreen, B. (2006) Global Imbalances and the Lessons of Bretton Woods, MIT Press.

I am always sceptical when my colleagues state uniformly that Wikipedia is a terrible resource but this experience serves to reinforce their prejudices. Here I am, a reasonable expert in my field, writing my thesis at a top 20 university and I am told that my edits are unwelcome. This website has the scope to become a really great learning resource if you stop uneducated individuals writing garbage on articles. I am telling you those three paragraphs are wrong and uncited and yet you don't delete them on that basis but prevent me from doing so? What is the policy of this website on proper practice and plagiarism - it is not proper scholarship to post three paragraphs of factually wrong statements without even citing!

I implore you to see sense. Thanks for your time.


 * When were you told your edits are unwelcome? Your edit was reverted for removing existing content without an explanation. Regardless of whether your content is correct, you may not simply delete existing content, as you did with your edit, which removed 1,698 characters of text. I appreciate that you are telling me that the paragraphs are wrong, however, it is not my place to simply delete them, nor yours. If you have an issue with the existing content, or want to introduce new content, post on the talk page (here), and discuss it with other editors. The content you take issue with has had a "citation needed" tag for quite some time, so assuming a valid source cannot be found (or if your sources are verifiable and contradict the unsourced content), it is very likely that with some discussion it can be removed. Since you asked about Wikipedia policy, here are a few links that may interest you: Plain_and_simple, No_original_research, Plagiarism, Content_removal. Thanks, JSpung (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ahem
JSpung, I appreciate your efforts but you were too quick on the draw at Pierce v. Society of Sisters: please look at edits more carefully. In the meantime I have figured out what is really wrong, and since you are logged in and you're a rollbacker you can correct it easily: revert the article to the state it was in on 20 January. Thank you. 207.93.13.145 (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Your edit was flagged because you removed a large amount of text without an explanation. Now that I have looked through the intermediate edits, I see you were trying to remove a repeated section. In the future, please utilize an edit summary so that other editors understand why you are blanking content. I will remove my warning from your page. Thanks, JSpung (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology. 207.93.13.145 (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've manually pulled in the two blocks of text that were lost, so that the intervening fixes (e.g. a spelling fix on the word children's) weren't lost. —C.Fred (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you . You are a credit to the profession. 207.93.13.145 (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)