Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Billy the Kid has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 01:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. 5 albert square ( talk) 05:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The verification of a tintype including Billy The KId and Pat Garrett together has been in world news. Forensic experts (recognition, provenance, and writing), as well as a retired professor have been quoted regarding the authenticity of the tintype.
The post was placed in wikipedia by a third party (not Frankabr.).
Another third party, 'Carlstak" continues to take it down. First he argued against the provenance. Since he is apparently neither a forensic expert, or someone quoted in the NY Times, BBC., etc., etc., his attack on the tintype is specious at best.
Further, the failure to include an article that is in world news, brings down the quality of Wikipedia, and in the eyes of those who look at, use or rely on this source, it lowers Wikipedia in the esteem of the public. Anyone who Googles the article will see close to a million hits.
Next, this same person, who apparently is neither a forensic expert or professor, and apparently does not work for the NY Times or The BBC., and who apparently can figure out that frankabr. was Not the first poster of this item, claims that there is a "possible conflict of interest" in frankabr. posting the article.
First of all, frankabr. did not post the original section. Secondly, Carlstak's attack for lack of provenance was both incorrect and misleading. Merely correcting that section is not a "conflict of interest." Next., the idea that poster will potentially profit from having a truthful posting, and that somehow this is wrong, is the most absurd argument that could ever be put forth. Everyone profits from the truth. But no-one profits from hiding it.
Please repost the section that Carlstak keeps taking down, and if at all possible prohibit this act from taking place in the future.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankabr. ( talk • contribs) 10:44, November 29, 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Billy the Kid. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You've already had this edit undone, as have other editors, and the talk page consensus is to leave it out. Meters ( talk) 23:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
The Billy/Garrett tintype, which was from a group of five, including Ash Upson,has been reported in the New York Times and world news. Forensic experts have spoken. Pat Garrett signed the tintype. Photo forensics have come up positive. Writing forensics, positive.
Those who take it down make Wikipedia look both unprofessional and uninformed.
Your recent editing history at Billy the Kid shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
This is to request that the edit by "Meters" whoever he or she is, be reversed. This issue has already been resolved as forensic experts have spoken. It has been in world news, including the New York Times. The act by "Meters" makes Wikipedia look unprofessional, amateur and taints its reputation. Please reverse the act of Meters. Thank you.
Experts have spoken. The provenance is unquestionable, including in the group of five tintype (that came along with the Billy/Garrett tintype) is Ash Upson and Florence Muzzy. The idea that the experts are wrong is contrived, ridiculous and without any basis in fact or science. Pat Garrett signed the tintype. This was determined by a forensic expert. The mendacity to question provenance is absurd and brings down Wikipedia in the eyes of users. Please revert back to the original posting that includes the Billy/Garrett tintype.
This should tell you something about the people who are attacking the posting of the Billy/Garrett tintype article. Ash Upson is one of the tintypes that was found in the group of five. He died in 1894, and was one of the tintypes found with the Billy/Garrett tintype. That, along with his niece, Florence Muzzy, who died in 1939. Quite frankly, the above post needs no response, but please re post the Billy/Garrett article as requested.
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely from editing for
sock puppetry per evidence presented at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frankabr.. Note that multiple accounts are
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans
may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by first reading the
guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
Bbb23 (
talk)
18:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC) |
Frankabr. ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #20148 was submitted on Dec 24, 2017 19:12:33. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 19:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
It was a great day before Christmas, until I was "blocked" for allegedly having "multiple accounts" which I do not have.
Why someone made this up, I can only guess, but I only have and use one account.
Please restore my privileges.
Thank you.
ps. I there a way to contact you?
Is there a telephone number?
Why did someone out of the blue claim that I had multiple accounts. Or "sock puppetry" ?
I do not have multiple accounts.
Thank you.
Please restore my Wikipedia privileges.
Dear administrator, I have one account.
I have not posted since yesterday.
Please restore my privileges.
Thank you.
I do not have and have never used multiple accounts.
Whether "Winklevi" thinks so or otherwise.
Thank you.
Your recent edits to
User talk:Frankabr. could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on
legal threats and
civility. Users who make such threats may be
blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for
dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by
reliable independent sources and focusing especially on
verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Pinging
Bbb23.
-- ψλ ●
✉
✓
21:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Dear Wiki,
All day, I have not posted anything on Wikipedia. Somehow, I am being accused of having "multiple accounts."
This is NOT true. Further, this accusation is being made by someone who disagreed with my edits. It is contrived. Period.
In the spirit of Christmas, I am in a forgiving mood. But I will not be libeled or slandered or accused of something that I did not do.
Please restore my privileges.
Thank you.
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. You will find the report filed at
this link
-- ψλ ●
✉
✓
21:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)