User talk:Boorsours
September 2014[edit]
Hello, I'm Amortias. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Kevin Mitnick, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Amortias (T)(C) 23:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Understood. Source now added.
Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of con artists with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello I am Dvannamers,
I noticed you removed my legitimate sourced edits to the Kevin Mitnick page. I reverted back to the text that was entered from sourced material.
You were already warned about vandalizing any Wikipedia page. Keep it up and you will be reported and likely banned. Dvannamers (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvannamers (talk • contribs) 02:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, I am Dvannamers.
Please stop removing the additions I made to the Kevin Mitnick page as they are unbiased sourced material. Just leaving the references is not acceptable. Reverted back.
Your references have all been kept. You will notice that none of your references or contributions have been deleted.
Do not remove my additions. We can add your material but do not erase mine as it complies with Wikipedia policy as sourced material. If you remove any of my edits I will revert them back. Please feel free to add your own material without removing mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvannamers (talk • contribs) 08:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for the obvious misunderstanding, that's what I was in fact attempting to do. I have no intention of removing your edits; only to ensure that in the process of your addition, no other relevant information or sources were removed. To make the process clear, I will go incrementally and slowly now with a series of edits.
Likewise, I will go through and document each change which is sourced and verifiable. If you remove my edits based on well-known source media, I will add them back. It's that simple. Your best option is to add whatever informative material you want and I'll do the same as long as it compiles with Wikipedia policy. I included a source for each change. Apparently you don't like how Mitnick is characterized in my edits. Stop vandalizing my edits. I hope that is crystal clear and won't give away to future misunderstandings. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvannamers (talk • contribs) 10:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The best way to approach editing here on Wikipedia is to keep things objective and neutral as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch. No one is here to "vandalize" your edits or anyone else's. It's not personal. Unless you're the subject of the Kevin Mitnick article in question. Are you? If this is the case, it's against Wikipedia policy for reasons and conflicts of interest that should now strike you as self-evident. We're all here hopefully trying to do the best we can to create a neutral, objective result. The same effect can be achieved, however, in the following manner. When you have included the phrase "At the time of his arrest, he was the most wanted hacker in the United States history and a federal fugitive", the use of a subjective qualifier is redundant. However, the requirement to maintain objectivity as per policy is upheld along with your achieved objective. See how that works? If you need another illustration, please contact me via my talk page. I think we have to remember that we are not here to pass value judgments (for ex, characterizing someone as "legendary" is a value judgment and not an objective fact). You and others may consider the subject of this article or another article to be "legendary" or "epic", as may others, but Wikipedia policy stipulates that such qualifiers are to be omitted in the interests of ensuring an objective result. It's important to maintain neutrality and to remove our personal views from the editing process. All your sources have been retained.
I disagree to your approach. The information I edited is in complete compliance with Wikipedia policy. You are the one that keeps vandalizing my edits based on your point of view. Apparently you have some issue with the subject of this page and keep reverting my edits without justification. My edits are complete objective based on news sources. As such, your removal of my edits are being reverted. You are required per Wikipedia policy not to vandalize pages. The term legendary is completely legitimate because this guy is a legendary hacker - that is sourced in the news. I also disagree with your changes to confidence trickster when the more appropriate term is social engineer based on reading numerous article about the guy.
Mitnick is labeled as a social engineer in countless articles. Just because you don't like the label doesn't give you a right to remove edit label that is based on countless news sources. Again, you are vandalizing the Kevin Mitnick page and your edits to my posts are being reverted.
And no I am not the subject of this Wikipedia page as you allege. It's a good try to eliminate my posts but your false allegations won't work.
Your changes have been reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvannamers (talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Calm down, please. Your edits aren't being removed. No one is trying to eliminate anything. This isn't an adversarial process. Your contributions are being included along with others and nothing is being deleted. "Social engineer" still appears everywhere you added it. Understood?
You calm down. Your changes have been reverted for vandalism and removing sourced material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvannamers (talk • contribs) 16:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
LOLOLOL!!!
Boorsours, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Boorsours! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC) |
Your recent edits[edit]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
September 2014[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — MusikAnimal talk 16:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)