User talk:Bond-Peters

Concerning Semper fidelis[edit]

Without reliable sources, please do not add back the paragraph to Semper fidelis that states that the Remy family is the source of the Marine Corps motto. This falls under Wikipedia's policy on "Original research". Personal family genealogy research does not meet the standards for reliable sources. If you have a Marine Corps source that backs up this assertion, please provide it. — ERcheck (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not use the article for a personal message to Mom. — ERcheck (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOUR ANSWER: I was under the impression that THE NEW YORK TIMES was a reliable source. Excuse me for thinking that the truly scholarly editors of "the" Wikipedia do not consider it so.

Your NYT reference is for this statement: "When Colonel McCawley retired as commander of the U. S. Marine Corps in 1891, Colonel Remey was presumed to have been his most likely successor." That is not in dispute. It is the conclusion that you reached that is original research. (I reviewed the 1942 text and did not find that conclusion.) — ERcheck (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for genealogical research, I am a professional genealogist. Dr. Rhamy, in his 1942 text, cites the source of his information concerning Jacob Remy's motto/crest/arms as having been paid for and received from the Louvre in Paris. Or, wait a minute, doesn't "the" Wikipedia editorial staff recognize those genealogical researchers as a true source either?

And, as for the USMC . . . YOU check out their pages. They have no idea where the motto originated either--BECAUSE the genealogical background of William Butler Remey HAS BEEN LOST/IGNORED/EDITED OUT BY CLOSED-MINDED PEOPLE LIKE YOU. I was under the impression that as a paid, professional researcher for the past five years, with a BA in philosophy, Summa cum laud AND with departmental distinction, I was consummately qualified to research, publish and edit your truly unique and scholarly internet publication.

Please see Wikipedia's policy on Original research. While your credentials may be laudable, original research is not allowed, "qualifications" of the editor notwithstanding. (Please assume good faith on the part of editors who are trying to help you to understand how Wikipedia works. We are here to improve the content.) — ERcheck (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point, it's an article on Semper Fi, not the Remy family history. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur here. An article on the Remy family would be the place to put the more extensive family history. (WP:OR still applies.) — ERcheck (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Semper fidelis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. — ERcheck (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OR, WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR. You've very close to getting blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I've blocked you for 24 hours for disruptive editing, particularly for your edit warring - please consider editing a little more constructively in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]