Talk:Friedrich Beckh/Archive 1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Dapi89 in topic Material restored in violation of WP:BURDEN
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Friedrich Beckh. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Material restored in violation of WP:BURDEN
I'm preserving it here by providing this link. Separately, please do not remove maintenance tags without discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- See WP:Vandalism. Removing sources because you want to is not acceptable. Dapi89 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- These sources are not used for citations; they are also dated and / or self-published militaria books and not used for citations. Please see WP:FURTHER. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- See WP:Vandalism. Removing sources because you want to is not acceptable. Dapi89 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in your opinions. This] was taken out, and will form part of a general re-write. Stop removing sources and adding dishonest edit summaries. Bergstrom is not self-published. Dapi89 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I kept Bergstrom. Please avoid mass reverting and claiming "vandalism". Instead, please address all the other unsourced material that was repeatedly restored. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Again, you are mistaken. Please see diff; no Bergstrom has been removed. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nah. The difference I provided shows you did. Here it is again. Dapi89 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- This was the older edit summary; the more recent one was: "with the sourced material preserved; the rest is unsourced and covered by WP:BURDEN -- pls see Talk page". Perhaps you are reverting too quickly to read edit summaries? Compare with your latest revert which shows Bergstrom in both version: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- While we're on the subject of reverting too quickly, your last edit on the page does not show Bergstrom in the reference list, only in a short citation without full bibliographic information. Parsecboy (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- This was the older edit summary; the more recent one was: "with the sourced material preserved; the rest is unsourced and covered by WP:BURDEN -- pls see Talk page". Perhaps you are reverting too quickly to read edit summaries? Compare with your latest revert which shows Bergstrom in both version: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nah. The difference I provided shows you did. Here it is again. Dapi89 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The editor might want to review the editing history more closely; Bergstrom was added to bibliography in subsequent edits, after Dapi has completed his revert spree. See for example:
- Dapi's 1st reverted version, edit summary: "vandalism and removal of sources" -- no Bergstrom in bibliography;
- Dapi's 2nd reverted version, edit summary: "removing sources again. Do it again, and sanctions may apply" -- no Bergstrom in bibliography
- Dapi's 3rd reverted version, edit summary: "vandalism, removal of Bergstrom and continued disruption to the article" (he's mistaken, as Berstrom had not been removed; it's present in both left & right columns as an inline citation in my dff) -- still, no Bergstrom in bibliography
Bergstrom was finally added to bibliography with this subsequent edit: diff. Hope this clarifies. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- No it does not clarify it. Finally added? I added it in my first two edits! See here]. More dishonesty! Dapi89 (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)