User talk:S9arthur

Melungeons

Hi. I can see that you're working hard on this article, trying to improve it. However, you are involved in a heated edit war over a link.

I notice this comment too: "I've made it my business since about 1999 to fight the BS on the Internet about the Melungeons, but it's like using a spoon to empty the ocean."

Wikipedia tries to present all views on subjects as fairly as it can. Its editors are generally committed to its policy on neutral point of view. Please read that policy and make a commitment to abide by it. There is no problem with your desire to have a point of view represented fairly, but if you try to bias the article by removing other points of view that are also represented fairly, you will likely meet opposition.

As for the link you repeatedly remove, please give reason on the talkpage for that specific removal. From what I can see, it gives the source for Saundra Ivey's views. Wikipedia encourages the inclusion of sources. It discourages deleting things without good reason. James James 21:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop "rewriting" the section on the outdoor drama so that it no longer sources the assertions about the drama and so that the link is omitted. This is still reverting, even if you hide it in a bigger edit. And please discuss your changes on the talkpage instead of just trying to impose your will. James James 06:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong to delete legitimate complaints held by others. To erase it is vandalism. Vandalism means you may be blocked from editing the Wikipedia. IP Address 01:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but your complaints are NOT legitimate... S9arthur 21:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not right to disregard the rules of our Wikipedia Community. You are not the sole judge of things either. IP Address 00:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are harrassing more editors, because you violate this Wikipedia rule: WP:OWN. IP Address 22:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?

Hello Arthur. I don't want to engage in this discussion too much, but I would like to point to the policy stating that removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism. It is generally acceptable to remove misplaced vandalism tags, as long as the reasoning is solid. I hope this policy reminder will help you guys. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 11:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP address

I suggest you just ignore the comments from user IP Address on the Melungeon talk page. He's just being a troll, trying to stir up trouble - the best bet in such circumstances it not to reply at all. He'll get bored and leave. - DavidWBrooks 21:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't sweep falsehoods underneath the rug. It is a horrendous thing you've done. I first tried to help directly with the article, but you used a dictator's control on the editing. You now have my full attention as to how much you think you own the article. IP Address 00:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]