User talk:ScottPAnderson

References

You have substantially changed pages such as Mau Mau Uprising, removing references and providing no support for your additions. The onus is on you to justify you alterations with third party references, not on me to say why they are wrong (on talk page or otherwise). If information cannot be substantiated it will be removed. Also be aware that wikipedia operates on consensus, and continually reverting good faith edits from other editors result in you being blocked from editing. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The previous Mau Mau article was highly disputed for its significant original research material, it also contained opinions and unveriable assertions disguised as "fact". Where material was cited, the citation was either fake or from non-academic unrelible sources (e.g. personal or non-neutral web pages).

Numerous visitors to the pages noted that it contained unbalanced opinions rather than balanced facts. (Please see the talk page for discussions dating from as far back as 2004.)

The rules are clear about this matter. All material must be verifiable.

If you have something specific, please discuss it in the talk page. You have your views and so does the rest of the world. Let us hear the consensus of other visitors over time and I will make the neccesary changes. Let us be neutral and accurate please. Thank you. ScottPAnderson (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My only view on the matter is that if historic figures are changing by over a 1000% with no change of references, then there is a serious issue with verifiability. The onus remains on you to verify the changes you make Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You have made large changes to the articles you've been editing, in particular changing the numbers of killed/arrested without providing supporting cites. You are now up to *7* reverts on the Mau Mau page. That is a flagrant breach of the 3 revert rule and you cannot argue that I am misinterpreting it. It's simple maths: the absolute limit is 3 and you have done 7.

You need to introduce cited changes, with agreement from other editors, and it is best to do this one small piece at a time. You say above 'All material must be verifiable' but ignore this in your edits.

If you continue like this you will be blocked. You have already been warned about this. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Let us not get overly dramatic please. Kindly discuss the issues you are contesting in the Talk page and let us get broad comments and opinions.

2. Please be civil, factual and constructive in your comments. You are using a lot of threats and exaggeration which is not constructive. Thank you.

ScottPAnderson (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User:ScottPAnderson

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Galloping Moses (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Related to the discussion at ANI, one point that I should make early on is that "freedom fighter" is a term that shouldn't be used (except, obviously, when quoting reliable sources. Terms like "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are non-neutral: the article should take no side - neither pro-British/European nor pro-Mau Mau.

Incidentally, I'd strongly recommend you drop by the ANI board - without any input from you it's difficult to know why you've made the edits you've made, etc etc.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)