Your continued attempts to insert material related to the current George Zimmerman trial into the Cracker (pejorative) article is disruptive for several reasons. Many of the assertions made are unsupported, representing little more than your opinion. Some inserted material lacks objectivity, violating the tenet of neutrality. Other material is simply redundant, having been presented in other sections of the article. Finally, the length of your statements place undue emphasis on the Zimmerman trial, which is not the subject of the article. For those reasons, material inserted by you has been repeatedly deleted or reduced by other editors, only to be re-inserted by you. This statement is placed here in the hope that a dialogue can be established to address these concerns. Failing that, a request for a block may be the only recourse. Gulbenk (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Response from 99pp.org. First nobody was interested or thought of applying the Zimmerman trial, to the "Cracker", Wikipedia until we, 99pp.org did it first. And now you who ever you are want to come behind us and erase our inputs and dictate what ever you want from our idea to apply the Zimmerman trial to the WiKipedia "Cracker". We even gotten, tired of reposting behind you and just made a small reference to 99pp.org, to display the ongoing debate of the word (you even erased that). This is one reason I am hearing from some that Wikipedia is becoming an unreliable source of information; I JUST had two different peoples totally un related to our matter tell me this; one you can find on our facebook site (will copy and past below) when we citing him John Brown From Wikipedia; and another young lady here in NYC, who I refered Wiki to her to study for a test, she replied " Wiki is unreliable, anybody could do anything based on there biases, etc, take down what ever one put in a split second, then she taught me an example, that When Political figure "Weiner" got caught in his scandal vandals was posting all sort of crazy stuff on wiki about him. As far as my original posting not support. not true. (1) You practically stole the first portion of my original, and put what ever references you wanted to (2) As far as my etymology description (a) Unless you've been born and raised in the black community I cant see how you goanna even try to dispute how I observed the word usage and definition in my community (b) You probably read zip zero slave narratives or have the tale past down from generation to generation to even have an inclination of the word meant to slaves (c) The reference to 99pp.org and its link (facebook) is a excellent example of the debate, as our face book page have and is conducting a poll on the word and engaging in hot discussions about (and also had referred our follower to this Wiki definition of cracker, way before you came behind us and start vandal-ing the page to your personal beliefs and likes. Now we will leave it as it and just place reference. https://www.facebook.com/govdemocracy "Bob Gray I do not accept Wikipedia as a source. Postings are not vetted nor referenced. Amazon has an excellent selection of books which deal with the Kansas Missouri border wars. Following are some selections War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Cisco (Apr 30, 2007) I admit it is somewhat slanted toward the Missouri side. There is an excellent book which is long out of print. It is if memory serves titled John Brown, The Early years" The book details Brown's activity on the border."
- Thanks 99pporg for your response. Exchanges such as this help develop a better understanding of the process, here at Wikipedia. Reliability of information is always a concern. That is why articles are referenced, references are required to be from a reliable source, original research is prohibited, and all edits are subject to community review. I realize that you are likely new to Wikipedia, and may not have seen many examples of that process at work, but it is the key to our attempt to present reliable information in a neutral, encyclopedia format. Blogs, interest group websites, and social networking sites such as Facebook are not reliable sources...they often just reflect the "personal beliefs and likes" that you criticize. When editors remove this type of information from an article, as was done with your edits at Cracker (pejorative) it is an attempt to maintain the reliability and focus of the article. Gulbenk (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
If you ask me its edited to just tell a onesided version of occurences. Like the wordings I'd observed in the trayvon martin article.
- All of us have opinions. However, as neutral editors, we have to avoid inserting a particular "point of view" (POV) into an article. That can be hard, and not everyone who edits here abides by that stardard. Some subjects are quite controversial, with emotional advocates on each side of the issue. So, when someone is found to be pushing a particular POV, those edits are immediately removed or tagged. Sometimes POV is displayed in the choice of emotionally charged words (see Loaded language) such as using the term "martyred" in place of "killed". Sometimes POV is found in the use of unreliable references (blogs, interest group websites, and social networking sites) rather than using reliable news sources. In some of the worst examples, POV is displayed by simply stating an unsupported "fact". If left unchecked, that sort of thing can quickly degenerate into a "onesided version" of an issue...and we try very hard to avoid that. I hope that you will continue to participate in Wikipedia, and contribute to the knowledge base we are building. It's a learning process. All of us find our edits reversed from time to time. You just can't take it personally. You'll get better, if you try to learn from each experience. Gulbenk (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)