User talk:Mourning Warbler

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to David Barton, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Barton

November 17 '07 BGC - You persist in using Alan Specter and Rob Boston as sources for David Barton's "pseudo-historian" status when neither has any credentials as historians? Alan Specter is a Senator with a law degree; Rob Boston is a journalist; neither is a historian. Please use verifiable resources. What is this "pseudo-whatever" stuff? The "whatever" needs to be clearly defined. Is an adoptive parent a "Pseudo-parent"? Is an Olympic athlete a "pseudo-athlete"? Is an "artist" without an art degree a "pseudo-artist"? Is Dean Caymen, with his lack of college degree, a "pseudo-inventor"? The repeated use of this term on this subject appears to be slander, an unfounded attempt to reflect unfavorably upon the credibility of the subject, without bothering to use any authentic verification. Mourning Warbler (talk)

Please do not edit war. If you continue you may be blocked. Let's discuss this on the discussion page. At the very least you need to find a source for this addition. Aunt Entropy 16:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I beg you, do not make major changes without any discussion on the talk page. (And that doesn't mean making emotional accusations against other editors, just calm discussion about content.) As of now, your changes are not acceptable. But you need to try to convince others of their utility. You can't just edit war your way to getting what you want. It won't work. If you again make such wholesale changes without discussion, I'll make an incident report asking for outside administrator assistance. Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just stating your opinion on the talk page isn't enough. You haven't convinced anyone of your changes and you are going against consensus. Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to make a comment here, but I see I am not the first. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia original research rules. The fact that David Barton's books contain a specific factual claim, and that his books are popular, does not mean that this specific factual claim is why he is known. His books, presumably, all contain material beyond "separation of church and state isn't in the constitution." If you want to claim that this specific fact is why he is well known, you need to find a secondary source to back that up. Putting comments into edit summaries is not an effective way to argue your position. I don't know who the anonymous IP editor was who claimed to be reverting vandalism was, but something is not "vandalism" because you disagree with it. Bhimaji (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 13 08 -- The difference between your version and mine is that you are not familiar with the subject, but are apparently more familiar with what is called "hearsay," defined in Encarta as "second-hand information: information that is heard from other people," and inadmissible in a court of law. Let's have some actual "original source" evidence of something in Barton's work with which YOU have personally acquainted yourselves!Mourning Warbler (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still persisting in edit-warring. You mentioned the rules of what is permitted in a court of law. It's not precisely clear what the relevance is, but I'll play along:

1. In a court, your qualifications and how you know what you know will be brought up and discussed.

2. You will be cross examined by people who are officially advocating for opposing sides.

3. The jury will look at your testimony *and* your qualifications together, and choose how to weigh them.

Regardless, Wikipedia's policies are not those of any court system. You need to adhere to them, or convince people to change their policies.

Your last edit summary indicates that you have totally and utterly failed to grasp the problem.

Let's give another example: If somebody were to put "Michael Jackson is best known for relocating to Bahrain in 2005 after his child abuse trial", most people would object and point out, what about his best selling records, etc. etc.

It's true! But it's obviously not what he is best known for. With Barton's entry, it's pretty much the same situation. Why don't people know him for reminding them that the Founding Fathers all believed in God? Why don't people know him for reminding them that religion has a place in public life?

I presume that David Barton's books contain many true things. They do not say one phrase over and over, do they? Why do you say that this specific claim is what Barton is known for? Bhimaji (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barton

Your edits are not in conformity with Wikipedia's standards for biographies. Please use the article talk page, talk:David Barton, to discuss the changes you want to make. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of article talk pages

Wikipedia has article talk pages. When there is a disagreement about article content, that is where you go to discuss your changes and justify them. You started using the talk page awhile ago, but then you stopped and went back to edit warring. You still haven't provide a single source for your assertion about what Barton is most famous for. Yet you still insist on including it. It needs a citation.

Your recent comment indicates that you believe that editors here are reverting you because they don't like Barton is rather silly. Personally, I had never heard of Barton before I got involved in this. I'm not trying to malign him. I simply want the article to contain cited information.

Also, you should sign your talk page comments with four tildes (˜˜˜˜). That puts a nice link and timestamp in. Bhimaji (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your last edit summary, you wrote:

"Specter and other "historians" are not historians; see citation and discussion. I beg you, please stop edit war"

If you wish to stop the edit war, use the article talk page. Propose each of your changes and citations, and we'll go from there. Wikipedia works on consensus. The other editors involved in this article appear to disagree with you. That's why articles have talk pages.

If you want the article to change, you will need to convince other editors of the merits of your changes. Your edit summary is not going to convince anybody. Bhimaji (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]