Tubacranger

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Regancy42 (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Burkle Estate. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. doxTxob \ ^talk 02:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Underground Railroad sites. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. doxTxob \ ^talk 02:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at History of Memphis, Tennessee. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. doxTxob \ ^talk 02:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

My edits are subsantivley solid although I am inexperience with editing Wikipedia. I hold advanced degrees in History and am an expert on 19th century Memphis History and if you disagree all you have to do is submit the primary sources to support your position.

You recent edits to Burkle Estate and other articles

Hey,

Please use the talkpage of the articles before you remove large sections from articles. Please do not place discussion topics in the article itself, it will be reverted and no discussion will take place. If you are interested in inproving Wikipedia that would be the method of choice. Thank you!

doxTxob \ ^talk 02:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutly no evidence to support the Slavehaven claims. The citations used are amateurish and based on recent folkore. They would not be accepted by any History department for a term paper. The claims are "lies" used by wishful dreamers to obtain government grants. If you have any good evidence then cite it! A similar effort was made by the owner of the Hunt Phelan home. Fortunately, the Wall Street Journal smelled a rat and sent an investigator who exposed these fraudulent claims for what the are. Every legitimate local historian refutes these claims. Even Arthur Prince, an African American Memphis historian had shown how absurd these claims are before he died about ten years ago to the Shelby County Historical Commission. Also, please do not use the recent book by Rushing who is not an historian and the book is full of gross errors. If you still have doubts, check with the director of Special Collections at the Univerity of Memphis library. Tubacranger

Hey Tubacrager! Thank you for your reply. I have copied the discussion to the article talkpage because I think this is an important topic to discuss. I invite you to continue this discussion on the article talk page Talk:Burkle Estate. That is what the talk pages are for, they keep the discussions about an article close to the article. Please read and respond to my reply there. And, please, refrain from deleting article content. I have undoe your last deletion. Let us discuss first what the best way to deal with things will be. Thank you so much and I am looking forward to hear more from you! doxTxob \ ^talk 00:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Burkle Estate has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Burkle Estate constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Burkle Estate. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please stop. What you are doing is now reaching the level of vandalism. It is not appropriate to link to other encyclopedias, as they are not considered to be reliable sources. If the other encyclopedia has sources of its own, then link to them directly. Second level sources are preferred over primary sources, and third level sources and below are disallowed. Please read WP:RS. Thank you. -- Otto (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The entire world knows that the Encyclopedia Brittanica is reputable and accepted when Wikipedia is not. Otto42, if anyone is committeing vandalism, is it you! You should refrain from this obstruction. Tubacranger (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with whether it's "reputable" or not. It's a tertiary source. A secondary source is preferred, and frankly they don't list their sources as far as I can see. Where, exactly, did their article come from? What are their sources? We don't take "reputability" on faith here. -- Otto (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)