User talk:Davinciscode

March 2008

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with your edits to Freemasonry. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Newguy34 (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you claiming my edit to Freemasonry was "vandalism"??? That is ridiculous. Davinciscode (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You restored material which had earlier been removed because it was not fully sourced. There is also the question as to whether the material added may violate WP:Undue weight, which I personally think it almost certainly does. While assuming good faith you can be assumed to have meant it constructively, it is preferable that you discuss the changes on the talk page before reinserting it. I note that you have not done so. Your own notification to Blueboar that what he did was vandalism was, if anything, more "ridiculous" than the warning you received above. I very strongly urge you to consider following wikipedia guidelines and discussing the removed content before possibly arrogantly reinserting it. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was fully sourced, which you deleted as well without any discussion. I am fully following Wikipedia guidelines, perhaps you should start doing so. Blueboar made repeated deletions of my edit without any explanation. Deleting another editors edits is considered vandalism I believe.Davinciscode (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not accuse editors you are currently in an edit war of vandalism. Thanks! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in any "edit war".
It certainly is vandalism to place such an accusation on another editors user page without any discussion.Davinciscode (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are, and no it isn't - there are policies that clearly define what is a content dispute and what is vandalism, as well as usage of templates. As a further note, maybe if you didn't decide to arbitrarily cut off your racism material at 1987 by only using one source, and perhaps had instead done some real research using real sources (like the COGMINA Committee on Recognition materials that allowed for the changes that have taken place) instead of pop-culture "conspiracy" books, you might have noticed that the recognition of Prince Hall since the 1990s has drastically increased, and continues to do so at present. Moreover, a name and a book title is not "full sourcing", nor has it ever been considered to be. It's just this sort of skewing facts to suit what you want to say (rather than showing what the reality is) that has always made your contributions and synthesis unsuitable for Wikipedia. Clearly, you are either a poor researcher, or your gaps are deliberate. Neither are acceptable, and after dealing with you for multiple years here on these same issues, there is no hope of any assumption of good faith on anyone's part.

You apparently have a real problem. I don't know what caused it, and I don't care, as I'm not qualified to sort it out for you. I think your biggest problem is that you just can't leave things alone. Whatever your issue is, you need to stop inflicting it on others. MSJapan (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]