User talk:68.253.211.244

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Little Walter page

Scarian, What do you have against Little Walter? Why do you keep removing verifiable, referenced information and quotes from his bio? The things you keep removing because you think they qualify as POV happen to accepted by virtually all experts on the subject as important and relevant contextual information, which you'd know if you looked at the references. If you have a personal problem with Little Walter, leave his entry to experts on the subject, because the changes you insist on making reek of vandalism to me.

If you really need to excersize your POV editing skills, why don't you check out the Muddy Waters article, or better yet, some subject you have more than a casual knowledgeable about?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.253.211.244 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I love messages like these. Okay so here's the deal: I was asked by an experienced user to conduct a POV removal on said article. I did so and I asked him to check to make sure it was all alright. He confirmed this. The article was POV laden as confirmed by an administrator. My edits reek of vandalism? I doubt that friend seeing as over 1000 of my edits in my brief period of time here have been spent removing vandalism.
As to your statement about accepted by experts and everyone else alike - [who?]. That is a view. An opinion. You cannot write: "He was a revolutionary harmonica player" - It's a point of view. Please read WP:POV.
As to your "verifiable sources" - one of them was a fansite. I wouldn't call that an indepedent, third party source, would you? Please read WP:Verify and WP:CITE.
Please do not tell me what I can and cannot edit. Anyone may edit any article. There are no restrictions, technically, that prevent people from doing so.
If you have any further questions or require any assistance please do not hesitate to contact me, friend. ScarianTalk 00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)