User talk:Helm999

I don't understand your edit to Racheltjie de Beer. Or the reference to "treachery". There are numerous streets and schools named after her. I am reverting your edit: please discuss with me if you have a problem with that. pietopper (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you the deciding factor in all this? Please enlighten why your version should be accepted without question or additions. I am reverting your edit: please discuss with me if you have a problem with that.

I reverted your blanking of Rachelthie de Beer again. If you have a problem with people who cannot be proved to have existed, the try Jesus Christ or Mohammed. pietopper (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very sad comparison - you are missing the point though. Comparing Jesus Christ with racheltjie or mohammed is a level I don't wish to descend to.

I didn't make the comparison. You just did. There are legitimate ways to get content on Wikipedia removed or improved. Wholesale deletion is not one of them, and the fact that something may or may not be fictitious is not one of the reasons for such removal. I will not communicate with you again, because you are clearly intent on causing problems. It will be easy enough to have you banned with the trail of evidence that you have left. pietopper (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sad again... The trail of evidence will show that my initial editing was intended to 1) indicate the reality that Rageltjie didn't exist. I did't just revert another user's inputs! 2) I don't believe this fiction should be removed either as it is part of the Afrikaner culture. Just respect other people's inputs and don't revert it just because you don't agree with it. Try not getting emotional when other people add their bit. Please stop the childishness. The Afrikaner culture is bigger than pietopper or Helm999. Here are some pointers for you:

"Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only after discussing the matter. A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit – don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Shortcut: WP:STATUSQUO If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. If you are unsure whether or not a revert is appropriate, then first propose the reversion on the article's talk page. If there is reason to believe that the author of problematic material will not be induced to change it, editors sometimes choose to transfer the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely."Bold text