User talk:24.33.124.117

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] ISCABBS "BFM" Revert

Hi there.

You recently reverted my deletion of the section labeled "BFM" on the article ISCABBS. In fact, you called it "vandalism" to have deleted the section (which is definitely not in the spirit of Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith.)

The section was unsourced, original research (see WP:NOR and WP:V), the material is so unencyclopedically written that not even a date for the event is provided, and the acronym BFM advances a point of view about the event (see WP:NPOV).

I'll confide my personal stake in the matter: I was one of the participants in that event. It left a bad taste in my mouth, but many years have passed since then. I'd prefer not to see it brought back up at all, but if people like you are going to use Wikipedia to retell an ages-old drama, please find an accurate source to cite. 24.127.52.67 18:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I've received your reply, but am dissatisfied with it. You're still calling my reversion "vandalism", and suggesting that the reason that I reverted it was that it "made me feel bad". So I'll repeat: the material is unsourced and biased.

You suggested that "If accuracy worries you, make it more accurate," which is the wrong suggestion for two reasons: One, I believe it does not belong in the article, not that a more-accurate-but-still-unsourced version belongs there instead. Second, it's an Wikipedia:Attribution official policy on Wikipedia that "Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." (emphasis mine) Accordingly, it's your responsibility, not mine, to find a published source for the so-called BFM.

I'm removing the paragraph from the article again. If you restore it without providing a source, I'll seek administrative intervention. 24.127.52.67 01:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] =====

I am once again reverting your deletion of the paragraph. I am sorry that you do not want it there, but that even was fairly significant in shaping the way the BBS administration dealt with the user group that oversaw the BBS, as well as the University of Iowa.

If you remove it again, I suggest removing every unsourced piece of material from the article. Which, of course, would be most of it. I am re-adding the section, with a source.