User talk:Manlybro

Your edits to Philip Emeagwali
Hi. Please stop removing relevant references and internal links from the Philip Emeagwali article, especially without any discernible justification; that is considered vandalism. Also, there is no point in talking about anonymous "detractors", "disparaging" or similar loaded words: the undisputed fact is that Emeagwali has no US patents or publications in recognized scientific journals, and not a single reliable source has ever claimed otherwise. If you have any verifiable evidence whatsoever to the contrary, just cite it, instead of talking about "some resistance" to such evidence, which implies that it's all a matter of opinion. Thank you, Hqb (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Hqb (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
This is your final warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Philip Emeagwali. Alansohn (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

The article is largely opinion based. The only thing i did was make it truthful and balanced. Example 1) "peer publications" where referred to without citation. And what makes the "publications" the authority? 2) claiming something didn't have any "lasting" effect on an invention is an opinion posted without a single example to the issue, never challenged by the editors. 3) Using words like "claimed" or "no evidence" etc was posted without "evidence" of the perspective. The page itself should be deleted because it is largely an opinion piece with a bias against the subject, making it a distortion. I appreciate the creation of such a forum as wikipedia, but, it appears that there will be individuals allowed here to make serious but subtle remarks without backing up their apparent perspectives. What's disturbing is that there was no challenge to the author on their foundational remarks that is disproportionately emotional and far less intellectual,thus unworthy of being posted here for worldwide reference. Nevertheless Thanks for the experience.