User talk:Pfurrie

File copyright problem with File:Google SketchUp 8.png

Thank you for uploading File:Google SketchUp 8.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mobushgu,

Please elaborate on "unconstructive."

Actually, the photo and all the information are 100% authentic. I was careful to produce the edit in a manner consistent with the manner Wikipedia articles are done, and with respect to the truth. As anyone who had received the same letter from the Trump campaign can attest, the ZIP-code of the return letter (and the rest of the address) is entirely accurate.

My edit may be inconvenient but it was truthful and accurate, and was not unconstructive. Obviously you have more pull in this conversation than I insofar as you can assert your opinion over whether the information should be presented, but your claim of "vandalism" is inaccurate by the definition as presented by Wikipedia itself:

"Vandalism is the action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property."

It also does not fall into any of the 24 types of vandalism outlined in the Wikipedia vandalism page regarding vandalizing its own pages.

There was no destruction, no damage, and only the presenting of facts with which you are apparently uncomfortable. Even the "Political" section of the Wikipedia vandalism page has no bearing on presenting facts that make someone uncomfortable.

Now, if my edit was in good faith (it was) and if the actions aren't actually vandalism (they apparently are not), then removing my edits would fall under the vandalism category of blanking.

Sincerely,

Pat Furrie

pfurrie@Gmail.com97 Pfurrie (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not understand what about associating Trump with the mark of the beast in the absence of a reliable source doing so is inappropriate, then I can't help you. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have sidestepped the issue. You said the "edits appear to constitute vandalism" and have a link to the Wikipedia guidelines on what is vandalism. And I've asked for you to specify the basis on which your claim is made. You could have pointed to something within the vandalism guideline pages but did not. As there is no vandalism. Pfurrie (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have sidestepped the issue of your addition to the page, which I do believe damages the project. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can point to a specific point in the Wikipedia vandalism list, then I say you are the one sidestepping... and I asked for and did not get any clarification.

Was my post actually about the Trump 2024 presidential campaign? Yes it was. Was it real and authentic? Yes, absolutely. Was it of concern to people who would read that page? Yes, on both sides of the issue. Was it in proper Wikipedia format? Yep. Was it unbiased? Yes.

So you've really zero to go on regarding saying it was vandalism. In fact, your removal is vandalism. Pfurrie (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]