GJBanton
The reason i deleted most of the content you added to the article was that it was terrible. It was badly written, and had quite clearly been copied word for word from your source, which by the way, you added incorrectly, and one book is not enough of a ref on its own--Jac16888 08:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Jac,
Thanks. You only proved my point. Nothing was copied. If half was so terrible then why did you not simply delete it all, since the style of what you left is no different from what you deleted? Yet, if what you state that the content was copied from a published reference, this means that it would have gone through the usual editoral scrubs prior to final. So not surprisingly your commentary has zero merit either way. Bottom line is you deleted facts and altered other facts.
And as reported Teague-Jones died at the age of 99-years. So do the math Jac. 1988 - 1889 = 99. As you now have mis-stated it 1988 - 1890 = 98. Use a calculator next time Jac. The information altered by yourself does not accurately protray the full facts.
Wikipedia needs to have a quality control/assurance team evaluating what you so called editors are doing. But again why bother. Remember use a calculator next time. Have a nice day.
GJBanton
- Try, WP:Civil. What i did to the article, i did to "trim the fat", the article was just one block of mostly pointless detail, and the so-called reference, which you added incorrectly, was of no use to me. By deleting less important parts, i generally improved the readabilty of the article. Finally, i honestly don't remember changing the date of his birth, i may have made a mistake for which i do apologise, however, that is no reason for you to be so arrogant about it, your edits were far from perfect. Finally, if you have a problem with my editing, then there are places you can go about it, but i doubt they will see much wrong with my edit--Jac16888 01:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
For those that do not know the history, facts, or who would know deletion of facts, alteration or misrepresentation thereof under the name of editoral autority will certainly be unknown to those interested in the true history. What is worse, arrogrance of word, of opinion, style, or arrogrance of editoral authority in deleting hard core facts, eh? I am not being arrogrant my friend and there will be no further correspondance. Time is too short for that. I wish you Good Luck. GJBanton
- Again, try WP:Civil. You have offered no real proof that your edits were any better than mine, in fact they were worse, as they made the article practically unreadable to casual reader. You do not own what you write on wikipedia, i am well within the rules to make a change as i see fit so as to improve the article. You can go ahead an re-add any information you wish to, so long as it is actually relevant, neutral, and clear.--Jac16888 01:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
((WP:Delete}} System Admin: The intent is to remove my account from this environment, or at least remove any further interaction. There will be no challenge or argument. Thank you very very much for your time and consideration. GJBanton 01:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)GJBanton