User talk:Braincomputerguy

Please do not use Wikipedia for the promotion of fringe theories. Your additions to RCMP-related pages are inappropriate content and have been removed yet again (given that you have repeatedly attempted to add the same material previously through a series of IP addresses). Further attempts may well be regarded as disruptive behaviour, and could lead to a revocation of editing privileges. Thank you. --Ckatz^chat _spy 07:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who am I supposed to reply to, you or one of the IP's? I reply here and on my talk page. I removed it because the section in question is unsourced, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. There is the question of relevence to the topic, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Relevance of content. There is Wikipedia:Consensus which, based on the fact that at least one, two and three other editors besides myself have removed the material, is not with you. Finally there is Wikipedia:Notability, which generally applies to articles, but to a certain extent applies to material in the article. In other words why is that section notable compared to any other lawsuit brought against the RCMP given the fact that at this time it has not been heard in court. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 09:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence and Wikipedia:Citing sources it is up to the editor adding the material to provide the sources. It is not up to the reading editor to have to make long distance phone calls to verify that a fact is true and correct. Material without sources may be removed by anybody, I don't have to wait for an RCMP member to remove it. After looking at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police article I suggest you read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule as you have already made four revisions to that article. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way if a member of the RCMP was removing the material that would mean they are having a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and given the fact that the person filing the lawsuit and yourself are both from Nanaimo makes me wonder if you have a COI as well. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat myself in the hopes that you will read and understand what I am saying. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence and Wikipedia:Citing sources. It is up to the editor adding the material to provide the sources. It is not up to the reading editor to have to make long distance phone calls to verify that a fact is true and correct. Material without sources may be removed by anybody. You must provide the source that says he is suing the RCMP and not me. I will not phone anybody to check something out and I do not have to do that, and neither does anybody else that reads the artcle. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Braincomputerguy reported by User:CambridgeBayWeather. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 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 {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Slp1 (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue with your disruptive edits to Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Scandals surrounding the RCMP. If you persist with this behaviour, your account will once again be blocked. --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]