User talk:86.130.136.240

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to William Herbert Wallace, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: William Herbert Wallace was changed by 86.130.136.240 (c) (t) blanking the page on 2007-11-30T17:23:41+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot 17:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User:Ecobun, you will be blocked from editing. delldot talk 17:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Yes I changed my entry on Willam Herbert Wallace because it had been vandalised by another user. The entry dealt with the known facts surrounding Wallace and the murder he was acquitted of in 1931. The vandal who altered it did so by laying the page out in a different style - which I did not object to - but then saw fit to add his own and other people's theories, which implicated another person, now dead, who cannot defend himself. This is grossly insulting to the man's descendants, who have made their displeasure known publicly and, tired of the continued refrerences to the dead man, are in the process of sueing two authors who have published books on the case. It ill suits Wikipedia to permit this slander of a deceased person to appear on it's pages. My 'vandalism' consisted of removing the references to the deceased person and left the article as I had originally written it - a statement of the known facts of the Wallace murder and his later acquittal, nothing more. I have several other articles on Wikipedia, none of which the genius who altered the Wallace one has yet interfered with, though I await this with interest. For Wikipedia to permit factual articles to be supplemented by bar-room theories cobbled together by hack authors and immature contributors with too much time on their hands says much about it's aims and accuracy. I have no interest whether I am banned from contributing or not. There does not seem to be much point in making factual entries, which are then left open for other people to alter with non-proven facts and the changes made permanent by Wikipedia.