User talk:InternetHero

Archives

Archive 1

POV, Refusing to 'get the point': Telescope

You are attempting to FABRICATE consensus to support your POV; back on July 23rd you solicited my support for your POV regarding the form of the Telescope article (previouse to then, I had no involvement in this article); after considering the content and discussion of the article, I could net lend my support to your position. On August 6 you solicited Eldereft's opinion on the mater, and, once again, not finding THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, you disregard the considered responses to your position.

Consensus is built -not fabricated. Please consider why you think no one understands the subject and your position on it -no mater how hard you try to explain. Ether you are poorly expressing your position, or the position itself is flawed: the 'no one understands like I do' argument is a justification, not a reason for a course of action.Mavigogun (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please see this page. That is the reason why you guys might hate me. InternetHero (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take it up on the page I directed you to. I actually have complete rights to my User Page, so please listen. InternetHero (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please see WP:CANVASS. "...messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive." - DigitalC (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. InternetHero (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You may also wish to familiarize yourself with WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS, and the humorous essay WP:TRUTH. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy drinking. InternetHero (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Norse colonization

Hi. I think I'm going to sit out on the punctuation debate, it's giving me a headache. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

HAHA. No promblem. This "Mavigogun" guys seems to see fit following me around. I think he/she likes me coz they've seen my picture from my facebook.com profile on my user page. If he follows me one more time into another article, I'm going to get an admin. I hope theres a policy against "stalking". LOL. cu. InternetHero (talk) 20:54, 10

August 2008 (UTC

Please, do contact an Administrator; their interjection could only help. My awareness of your activity began when you were canvassing for support of your position on an article and solicited my opinion; edits made there on brought to my attention weakness in your composition and grammar when using English -a language you report is not your native tongue; naturally, upon seeing a list of self described 'Grammar Crusades' on your user page raised concern that, while well intended, you could be doing wide spread damage to the integrity of those pages. Far from 'stalking', this is an organic development.

As always, I encourage you to make positive contributions.Mavigogun (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:STALK

Hello InternetHero. You may be interested to read WP:STALK. Your interpretation may vary from mine, but I have quoted SOME of the text here with emphasis (please read the link in entirety):

"The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles"(emphasis mine).

- DigitalC (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

Hi. Regarding my suggestion that we request comment from the wider community on your general conduct as an editor, DigitalC made a suggestion on my page talk page that I think is a really good one. He suggested that an ideal outcome of an RfC would be that you might agree to look for a mentor to help you through the obstactle course that is Wikipedia editing.

It just occured to me that we might save lots of time if I just took this suggestion to you. My reasoning is as follows: Without placing blame, you have been caught up in lots of conflict in the past few weeks. I feel that at least in part, a lack of experience and understanding of Wikipedia policy on your part has contributed to most of these conflicts.

A mentor is basically an experienced editor who helps provide you with feedback on your edits. As they are usually not involved in any disputes, and their aim is to help you with your editing, they are usually able to provide you with frank, constructive advice, which is delivered in a non-confrontational way. Most mentors are happy to communicate with you off-wiki (usually email or IM), too. You can think of them as a big brother/sister in many ways: They'll let you know if you stuff up, but in the end, they're on your side.

If you're interested in considering this idea, a good place to start is Adopt-a-user. Would you be interested in seeking out such a mentor? -- Mark Chovain 08:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much already know all the rules. I've been here for a while.

I think the problem at the telescope and history of the telescope articles were that some of the other editors were probably racist. They probably didn't know who Al-Haytham was and it baffled them. I eloquently informed them of the opposite---as doing so would ensure my respect.

To be fair, we (I think 6 other editors including me) have at least 5 very-good quality references that state the opposite. The initial discussion was between 5 users: User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr , User:DigitalC, User:Mavigogun, User:Eldereft, and me :-). Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Edits without discussion

You have repeatedly reverted edits to Abbas_Ibn_Firnas without responding to requests for input at Talk:Abbas_Ibn_Firnas; desist from these reflexive edits, use the discussion process; consider the results of your previous repeated reversions and the discussion related to them.Mavigogun (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:WQA

I have posted a request for outside input regarding your behavior, particularly this edit where you make baseless accusations. Oddly, none of my other 2500 edits in the past three years have been to that page despite regular discussions regarding neutral presentation of religions or the level of evidence necessary before it would be appropriate to make an equivocal statement about the laws of thermodynamics. If you would prefer that discussion occur elsewhere than on your talkpage, mine is open. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to delete, as well.

No problem, cheers. · AndonicO ^Engage. 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Left a comment. · AndonicO ^Engage. 21:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Norse colonization of the Americas#Thoarvald's voyage

The grammar and punctuation are correct. However, the sense is not quite right: One person cannot return "in force", which implies a larger number of people. The ninth victim might have returned "with a force" consisting of himself and other people; alternatively, he might have found other people, and they all returned together "in force", but he alone could not have returned "in force".

Also, the name of the principal European is spelled differently in the section heading compared to the paragraph. Making them match is probably desirable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

lol, thanks. Just ask if I can help you in any way.

I just wasn't sure if this sentence was correct: "One of Thorvald's brther named Thorstein led a voyage." I didn't know if you needed a comma or not. InternetHero (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Both are correct: "A person, named John, did this" and "A person named John did this". It's just a stylistic choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm gonna put my english back to 3 for a while. You should put yours 4 or 5. InternetHero (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment - User conduct

Hello InternetHero. Your conduct is being discussed here. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list. You may wish to participate by responding in the appropriate section. - DigitalC (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

The templates for citing web, journal, book etc are here: Category:Citation templates. They don't work on the page unless there is a References heading with reflist in double curly brackets below it. Done properly they show up as little, clickable ref numbers inline. Hope that was what you needed. --Hordaland (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! C U. InternetHero (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the "Indian auxiliaries" should be mentioned as the belligerents

Those guys did a lot since without them they probably wouldn't have killed all the Incas. Can they be considered as belligerents? Ryan Burke (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean for the fact that Pizarro lied about them. There was probably about 40,000 of them. Can you help me with the Battle of Cajamarca page? The guy think that the Inca were armed---they were not. InternetHero (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Norse colonization edits

Hello Hero. This edit summary is troubling: (Medium edit: I left most of it on, but added the other inof. Plz don't feel you need to cleanup my edits. To be fair (no offennce), your grammar isn't that good.) Not the part about grammar; I don't care a whit for your opinion of that. I'm interested in the article, not in whether I'm changing your stuff or someone else's. So it's troubling that you think I change things because they were yours. I'm at Wikipedia to write and improve articles. I do suppose that with that rfc thing going on, you may be touchy. My recent edits to that article were done carefully, one at a time, carefully explained.

It's almost impossible to discuss an edit when it's wholesale.

• Why should the phrase "referred to as Skrælings by the Norse" be in parentheses?
• It is simply not true that the sagas say that Norsemen probably discovered Greenland whenever. The sagas say that they did.
• "Cold, two-faced heathen" is a phrase which does not belong in a factual encyclopedia article, as others have told you.
• What is Polar wind? Well, according to Wikipedia it is "the permanent outflow of ionization from the polar regions of the magnetosphere". I admit I don't understand much of the article Polar wind. But is it helpful in explaining Bjarni's navigation problems? The point is that he came off course.
• This is English Wikipedia. "Budir" doesn't even appear in the Norwegian article on Leiv Eiriksson, a page search shows. It's a foreign, perhaps archaic word which doesn't belong here.
• What is "nine inches of red cloth"? A 9 x 9 inch square? That hardly covers a large hand. There must be some misunderstanding about those 9 inches.
• And that cloth "to which the natives tied around their heads..."? What's the word "to" doing there?
• There are several problems with this sentence:

"The situation seemed desperate were it not for Leif Ericson's half-sister Freydís Eiríksdóttir, who seized the sword belonging to man that had been killed by a flat stone to the head and turned to face the natives."

"Belonging to man that" needs to be a man or one man, not just belonging to man (sounds like it means mankind). About people, one usually says "a man who...", not "a man that...". The flat stone is a bit unclear: was it thrown at him, or was he somehow crushed against it? This version is better:

"The situation seemed desperate were it not for Leif Ericson's half-sister Freydís Eiríksdóttir who seized the sword belonging to a man who had been killed by the natives and turned to face them." (Well, I'm only assuming he's dead because he's been killed, but it seems a safe assumption.)

Shall we take up these points on the article's Talk page? One at a time, or the whole list? In any case, an article's Talk page is for discussing making the article better and better-sourced etc, not for whom among us said what. --Hordaland (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Just adding a minor grammar point: A man that... is technically correct, but less common since, oh, say, the middle of the 20th century. It is more formal and authoritative than A man who..., and so is often chosen for effect: A man that kills another person must be punished severely, but A man who loves his family will be kind to them.

And User:LOTRrules is reminded that other editors do, in fact, read talk pages, particularly when there's an RfC open on the user's conduct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Complaints to ANI regarding editors

I have responded to two complaints by you regarding the editing of two contributors, which I investigated and found that they had both commented on the current RfC regarding yourself. I would suggest that it appears very prejudiced for you to be requesting comment/action against parties that have commented on your editing at the RfC, and strongly advise you not to pursue actions independently of that RfC. If you have any concerns regarding the motives and accuracy of these contributors in relation to articles you are editing, then the RfC is the ideal venue in which to bring it up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats what they intented to do. Oh well, I'm over it. I have been courteous and polite and not once have I indiscriminately reverted someone's edit. If I were to do the latter, a storm would brew etc,. If you'll look further, you'd see that they're mad that the community has spoken against them and took out their frustrations. I et you didn't even look at my response. Maybe I should shorten it. Ah well, I have better things to do with my life than to defend myself aginast people who obviously spend over 13 hours a day on Wiki. Cheers. InternetHero (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't give up

Be tough and debate that is what Wikipedia is all about. See reply Telescope. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not giving up; I'm just not going to take this too seriously anymore. I have been nothing but respectful but if enough people dislike you for whatever reason (indeed, the users on the telecope page are racist or they hate me coz they seen my facebook page coz I get a lot of girls), they can make a "rfc" (request for comment).

Once that is up, the admins won't even help you when people delete/vandalize information. I even told the 3rr noticeboard that this guy was edit-warring. He revert my edits 4 times, yet the admin said the POV tags were justified... I had NO POV--just the need to contribute with a modern-day form of literature.

I have to admit it was a clever trick, but as far as its merit: it is worthless. If you accept peoples' strengths and try not to use artificial counter-measures such as hate or pleasure to try and reciprocate the mind, then you can get inside the mind of any1---even girls. Thats the secret of my intelligence; I don't care if any1 steals from me more: at least it may help them. I'll be leaving soon anyway. I'm am going to write one more essay in respect to the omnipotency that can be achieved through understanding the universe in respect to time. Then maybe people will stop raping women and girls. Good day, fellow Internet Hero!! InternetHero (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Watch, I won't get their divine blessing to edit. If something causes you this much stress---and you don't get paid for it---it isn't worth doing. I have a gGF NOW!! HUZZAH!! You should find one to. I hope they get better, maybe they'll be as happy as I am right now. :-) Good day fellow Internet Hero!!! InternetHero (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Look here. LOL. That is why they're not happy and spend 13 hours a day on Wikipedia. InternetHero (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You are giving up! Look at you. Do not leave. I'm supporting you. And their dirty tricks won't get far. Also please reply directly to my talkpage no one looks at talkpages I only this now. I have raised the issue with 2 Admins. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 20:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

See reply at talkpage Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Talk Space Usage

Article talk space is for addressing specific issues and proposals with that article -not general discussion of the article topic, or as a chat space with other users to address any other topic (such as user behavior or editing controversies on other pages), as seen here: [1]. Details of your personal life are not appropriate. Desist from adding noise to article talk space; direct this discourse to venues designed for them, such as user talk space or other personal conflict resolution tools. Mavigogun (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop marking your edits as minor

For the last time: Please stop marking non-minor edits as "minor". Some users set their accounts up so that "minor" edits do not appear on their watchlists. The minor flag is intended for insignificant format changes, and is not meant for changes such as [2], [3], [4], [5], [[6], or [7] (to list just a few from your most recent hour of editing). If you have the "Mark all edits minor by default" checkbox under "Editing" in your preferences, then please uncheck it immediately, as that setting is only intended for people who are able to remember to switch it off. It is better to accidentally mark minor edits as major than the other way around. -- Mark Chovain 02:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that it doesn't show up on the watchlist. Alright. InternetHero (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, would you please consider seeking out a mentor. You might have been here a long time, and be able to quote guidelines, but little things like this (not to mention the stuff at RfC) suggest that there's still a lot you could learn.

On the topic of the RfC: I suggest you pay more attention to it. The overall feeling there is that you have no interest in taking any recommendations on board, and that the only way forward will be to refer the matter to the Arbitration Committee. If that happens, and you continue to ignore the opinions of others, they're likely to apply pretty harsh remedies, possibly including banning you from Wikipedia.

Until you start considering the opinions of others, this will keep escalating. -- Mark Chovain 21:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You are continuing to mark significant edits as minor. I have avoided commenting on the RfC in the hopes that you would learn how to reach consensus with other editors. Your behavior is disruptive and has had the opposite effect from that intended. Your deceptive and argumentative practices have made it impossible for you (or anyone else for that matter) to reach a consensus on incorporation of material that I believe should be included in the Telescope article. You need to trust that properly formulated arguments with good faith editors will lead to just results. If I see another non-minor edit to the article marked as minor, I will be compelled to add my voice to the RfC and work to preventing you from editing the article even though I agree with the intent of your edits. Thank you. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 15:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

O.K. InternetHero (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Samuel de Champlain. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, your edits will be considered vandalism and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badger Drink (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Norse colonization of the Americas, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. [8]. Comments such as "[Xxx] is clueless" have absolutely no place in edit summaries. You have been warned about this time and time again, and will be blocked if you keep it up. -- Mark Chovain 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To make this clearer: the next time you find yourself typing something of the form, "<User> is <adjective with negative connotation>", do not even think of saving the page, as there will be no more warnings. You have been warned many times in the past for referring to other editors as "vandals" and "racists", yet you still continue to attack other editors. If you wish to continue editing here, then you're going to have to learn to comment on the content, not the editor. -- Mark Chovain 21:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Go play WoW and leave me alone. k, tx. I know I'm a good looking boy, but not THAT good looking... InternetHero (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to your ANI, and giving you the benefit of the doubt, I've placed a general notice on the Talk:Norse colonization of the Americas page, which is addressed to all editors. I would like to privately suggest to you, however, that you take it down a few notches with your editing. A look at your talk page and your edit history, and even your response directly above, suggests that your editing may be a little tendentious. Please take the advice that several editors have offered you, or rightly or wrongly, you may find yourself blocked. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for incivility after final warning in this edit. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Attitude

Please try to adjust your attitude and style. You'll continue to encounter roadblocks if your edit summaries consist of personal attacks. Focus on article content, not on other editors, and you may find things go better. Dicklyon (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. InternetHero (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Optical telescope

OK, I added a request for comments to the talk page. I hope we can get some new perspectives, LouScheffer (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. InternetHero (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

What's your source for Xiu and Beltran de Cetina info you included in the Spanish colonization article. Provide or face information erasure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.92.43 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. But I see no mention of Beltran de Cetina in that book. Answer?--72.221.92.43 (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Inga Clenedine's book: Ambivalent Conquest of the Maya in the Yucatan. Its an awrad winning book. InternetHero (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It`s a pretty big book, I think I saw it in the ~missionaries~ section. I forget the title of the sections. By that time the Xiu were being converted---de Cetina is otherwise known as Montejo the Younger. InternetHero (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Darn, I got confused. Francisco de Montejo, El Mozo (the Younger) doesn`t have a page. It`s de Cetine`s son that was named by him. Sorry. InternetHero (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

LOTRrules

Just to let you know severeal admins are looking into the bully tactics of user:Otterathome. Please can you provide the evidence here? As you know I am banned becuase I lost patience with Otterathome (and for, accidentally, not knowing sockpuppetys wasn't allowed). Obviosuly I cannot supply the evidence as in the next minute I'll probably be banned for sockpuppetry. Please supply the info. Otterathome wants to be an admin someday. Can you imagine if he did? He's be the worst thing since ever to Wikipedia. (Also Otterathome himself is suspected of sockpuppery...) LOTRrules3 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'll help. What has he done? InternetHero (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

re your message on my talkpage; I recall the name, but the incident escapes me (I cannot find any reference in my contrib history or block log going back 4+weeks) and the username User:LOTRules does not bring up anything either. Can you provide me with the username links on my talkpage, please? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Found them. My (negative) response is on my talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Telescope, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please desist from adding material against consensus, as you did here, here, here, here, and here. If you would like to reopen that discussion, please do so at Talk:Telescope. In the meantime, continuing to add that text is disruptive and may lead to a block or a ban. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, please be aware of the policy on edit warring, particularly the provision that the 3 revert rule is a sufficient but not necessary line. Repeatedly inserting the same text without discussion is edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have started a discussion regarding this matter here. Please comment there. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like discussion's broken down, unfortunately. Is there some reason you seem disinterested in working toward a consensus-based solution? Surely you're smart enough to see that your current methods aren't having the desired result. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 16:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Chichen Itza

I'm not quite sure the point of your recent changes to the Chichen Itza page. Also, your changes do not appear to be supported by Clenniden's book (which I happen to have in front of me). However, before I made any serious changes to your text, I thought I would ask for your reasoning. Saludos! CoyoteMan31 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the statement of Montejo establishing a base at Campeche? I read the book and she didn't mark any interest in detailing any sort of a fight. Considering (page 12) 'The Coast of the Disastrous Battle,' I think the warriors at Campeche were allies since they were also later recruited (page 41) "en masse" in 1546. As late as the 1550s, there were only some 1,500 Spanish in all of the Peninsula---45 at Campeche. I doubt the warriors at Campeche were on (page 43) negative terms. Bye. InternetHero (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I went back to Chamberlain's book (a much better source than Clenniden, who is more analysis than history), and while it is not explicit how Montejo established his base in Campeche (whether by force or by cooperation), he does write that the Campeche Maya later collaborated with him. As such, you are factually correct, so I didn't change anything else. Saludos! CoyoteMan31 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, friend. It's nice to see somebody who knows a thing or two about the Maya. Such a vague history surrounded by many injustices and "un-truths." I'll be sure to check out Chamberlain's book when I get the chance. InternetHero (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Please see the MoS for placement of quotation marks. Commas and semicolons go outside the quotation marks in the middle of a sentence. Thanks! --Againme (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks, I didn't know. InternetHero (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Mackinac Island (1814)

I assume that your comment on my talk page refers to your and my recent edits to this article. I do not have an issue with any numbers you wish to introduce, properly cited. I do however maintain that such additions be more carefully edited. As a minor point, the plural of "tribesman" is "tribesmen", and "Native Americans" is preferred (or occasionally "Indians", though this is becoming deprecated). The major points are that the text originally read:

Thirteen Americans were killed, including Major Holmes and two other officers, fifty-one were wounded (including Captain Benjamin Desha, second in command of the regulars) and the Americans were thrown into confusion.<ref name=Zaslow148/>

To change, as you did, "thirteen" into "twenty", and "fifty-one" into "forty-four", without providing a cite for these changes, means that the figures are no longer supported by the cite given, calling the accuracy of the article into question.

The second major point is that you inserted text into a sentence:

His force consisted of 140 men of the Royal Newfoundland and the locally-raised Michigan Fencibles, 150 Menominee Indians from the Wisconsin River and 200 tribesman, who McDouall considered to be the best fighters at his disposal,<ref name=Zaslow148>Zaslow (ed), p.148</ref>

Without your addition (noted in bold), it is clear that McDouall considered the Menominee to be his best fighters. After your addition, it appears that he considered the "200 tribesman" (sic) to be his best. Once again, this is not supported by the citation which already exists. Do the Menominee count as "tribesmen"? If not, then who were these "tribesmen"? Of what tribe?

Please do not make edits which contradict the citations already in the text, or which introduce inaccuracies or confusion into previously coherent accounts. HLGallon (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya, ya, I have Pierre Bertons's book "Flames Across the Border." He doesn't specify what tribe they were from. Sorry about the mis-edits. InternetHero (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You may alter the article if you wish, but if you change casualty figures, provide inline cites for them. HLGallon (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. You have different figures, though. Anyway, I'll leave it the way it is. Pierre Berton is an authority---isn't he? He says 20 killed and 40 wounded but you'veput a lot into the article. I'll help if it needs any English/syntax improvements. InternetHero (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Minor" edits

Your changes to Wolverine, per this diff, were not minor. I see from above that other editors have commented on this issue before. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Minor_edit to see what qualifies for the flag. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Whaever. I made an edit. InternetHero (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the additional source to Wolverine, which presumably supports the edit you were making. That was all that was wrong in the first place. Now please stop marking substantive edits as "minor". The practice is misleading and you are experienced enough in Wikipedia to understand how not to do it. JohnInDC (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's gone now. I got it from the library that day. Thanks for the support. InternetHero (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to Siege of Fort Meigs with the edit summary 'Bitch'

I can't think of any case where an edit summary 'Bitch' would be appropriate. In this case you changed an article with 12 sources to one with 1 source, wiping out the work if numerous editors - evidently because you preferred your version that had been changed in 2008 (hence the 'Bitch' comment I presume, apparently a comment on other editors. You are also still using the minor tick box inappropriately despite the warnings you've had about this. You also added personal unsourced commentary to a BLP article today.

What are you gonna do about it? Nothing. I repent. That's what. InternetHero (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously dude, I have repented. Iwill not do it again, okay? InternetHero (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Just be more careful, and you should know better then to add jokey comments (I saw the smiley in your edit summary) to BLPs. Or to threaten to sock, that just draws my attention more to your edits. And I really do not understand your use of the word 'ambivalence', I can only think you've confused it with some other word. Dougweller (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Because we hate and love yuo white men. InternetHero (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

august 2010

Please stop introducing jokes into articles, such as those you created at European colonization of the Americas. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Continuing to add jokes and other disruptive content into articles may lead to your being blocked from editing. Per these edits [9] and [10]. Dont reinsert your nonsense again. Heiro 13:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Iroquois, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Deconstructhis (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You're in your drink, boy (or girl). InternetHero (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna see my friend today---he's ancestor of the great Subedei---allied to the French: coureur DU bioz. Thanks, people. Goodbye. I'm not needed here I'm dumb and stupid ansd my edits are worthless. I haveno knowldege of the Indian wars, my knowldege came from themontains and sand. It is useless. InternetHero (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed in their most recent additions to the Indian auxiliaries article, that this editor is now posting purported statistical information alongside references they provide (including page numbers) which do not support the numbers they're claiming. Deliberately adding false information? Hmmmmm.... Deconstructhis (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for edit warring/disruptive editing. Vsmith (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Your insertion of commentary

You have been warned for this type of editing before, as can be seen above on your talk page. Keep editing along these lines, or seek to re insert this, and I go to WP:ANI. You know the rules here by now. Heiro 04:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

War of 1812 editing

Your edit was highly disruptive as it removed some editing that was needed in the article. I have reverted it and I hope that you do not engage in that type of behaviour again. Serious, well thought-out and researched (documented) additions are welcomed but not disruptive editing.Dwalrus (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at War_of_1812. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive; until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.Tirronan (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There were no major battles in which the South saw any native Americans participate in. The Creek war was a totally different conflict. How is clearing up (wrong) factual information disruptive? The battle of Mackinac Island was held in the summer of 18 ----> 14 with the ndns defeating a large American force attacking a KEY position that was aggressively sought after to include it's cessation in the treaty of Ghent. Liverpool lobbied tremendously to keep the island in British hands to no avail. How is that "destroying britain's ndn allies?" Makes absolutely no sense. The real "destroying" came from the Americans receeding to the 1811 Indian-American boundaries. This was because not even an acre was ceeded to the Indians. Bye, bye. InternetHero (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing.

A report concerning you has been made here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:InternetHero reported by User:Heironymous Rowe. Heiro 05:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ty. InternetHero (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

~Amatulić (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.Tirronan (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If you insist on continuing this behavior I will go to the boards and recommend a ban.Tirronan (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't the one that reverted you, and that does not change the fact that any more of your disruptive edit warring and you are heading for another block at the least if not a out right ban.Tirronan (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

ttt = tothetop InternetHero (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Onondaga Council

I note that you have challenged four contributors for editing this article. Please make sure that you have read and understand WP:OWN. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be accurate and balanced summaries of what reliable and verifiable sources have to say on a notable subject. Editors are not required to interview subjects before editing any article. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@InternetHero (talk): American History X is a spectacular film, although I don't quite understand why you referred to it on my talk page. I also do not understand why you take issue with my contributions to the Onondaga Council article. I made some very minor changes by adding relevant tags to the article. Since you have been editing for some time, I hope you understand that these tags are not complaints, but are an invitation to all editors to make specific improvements to the article, making it that much more accurate and informative. As far as whether I have personally spoke to individuals who are personally involved in the subject of the article? No, I havent, and using such information would violate WP:V and WP:PRIMARY, since that information would by definition be unpublished. Article content should be based on verifiable, reliable sources - preferably secondary sources. Hope this clears things up. —Josh3580_talk/hist 05:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So you're basically sayin' I can't write about my own people? Take the article, don't ever come to our gatherings---EVER. InternetHero (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither of us said anything at all about your edits, I was explaining my own edits, and Flat Out let's discuss it seemed to be explaining that no one owns any Wikipedia article, so everyone is free to contribute - the exact opposite of your interpretation. Try to Assume Good Faith when it comes to other editors. We are all trying to make Wikipedia's content better and more accurate, not keep you from editing. —Josh3580_talk/hist 14:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an idiot and I resent being treated like one. ty ttt=tothetopInternetHero (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry you feel that way, I certainly didn't mean to come across in such a manner. We are just trying to help improve the article. Since I am messaging you again, I see that you added a reference to the League of the Iroquois book. I believe it should be included, but I am trying to put it in the in-line citation format, so it will be listed with the other references. Another editor may remove it if it's not in the in-line format, and I am trying to prevent that. In order to do so, I need to know where exactly in the article it goes. Which sentence or paragraph did you used this book as a source for? Once I know, I can place the citation in the article body itself. Even if you used the book for multiple parts of the article, I need at least one sentence or paragraph to pin it down to. —Josh3580_talk/hist 15:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually still looking for it. The library threw it in the garbage for some reason. Take it off for now it's just a sensitive issue for us. Deganawidah had to hold Ionhawatha to the Mohawk hereditaries. In doing so, he was scared for life both emotionally and psychologically. Ionhawatha wasn't so lucky. In a strong sense of things, we still hate each other to this day. It was only in the dissolution of the 'league' that we became friends under the banner of the U.S. Congress. We're indebted to the Missionaries AND the Freemasonic Congress. Washington was a great man! InternetHero (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm Spanneraol. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Babe Ruth because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Spanneraol (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Grandad!