User talk:Flagman Hank

Canadian Duality Flag

Your radical rewrite, while apparently done in good faith, is in poor style and makes the article less factual. If you want to add information I suggest that you bring it up in Talk:Canadian Duality Flag. Claiming privileged authority over the article will not go down well; on the contrary, if you are indeed the designer or promoter of the flag, you are the last person who ought to write the article about it. —Tamfang (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hogwash..the gibberish being written by wannabees is incorrect and therefore, as creator and major promoter of the Canadian Duality Flag, I am setting the record straight. Everything that I've written is 100% authenticated and can be backed up by major newspapers and television. If you want to make up fairy tales, try the kiddies section. Respect the Wikipedia concept.

Several times over the past years, the article has been corrected to be factual and every time it has been reeditted to continually mislead the facts and merit of the flag. Wikipedia leaves itself open for political midgets to play their games. Tell your Loser Buddy that he will not succeed in continually distorting the facts.Flagman Hank (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any point in saying that I have no idea who LB is? —Tamfang (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please consider that we have no way of knowing who you are; anyone can come in and claim to be the author; and we have no reason not to be concerned that the author might have his own reasons for wanting to distort the record in the guise of 'setting it straight'. Respect the Wikipedia concept: refer to Wikipedia:No original research.

I had no hand in writing the previous version; I don't know or care who did.

Wherever the truth lies, you'll have better luck in getting your version to stick if you offer your version in the form of amendments (through discussion in Talk:Canadian Duality Flag) rather than as a belligerent replacement; or, failing that, if you write it coherently. —Tamfang (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone with a grade 3 education can figure out who I am by the material presented and if they ever cared to cross reference it with our site material ([1]). So who the heck are you to sit judge and jury about something that you know nothing about? We know who presented the false material and can almost match it word for word from other communications/sites. He had to admit it or face total discredibility as an academic. In any case, it doesn't matter much, the more that I talk to people the more that Wikipedia is viewed with a grain of salt. It is more of a blog than credited research, which is a shame for the poor soul who started it all with a great concept, and those who are truly dedicated to pass their knowledge onto the world. However we made our case with a major publisher who will be doing a story on the Canadian Duality Flag and who was warned not to get his information from Wikipedia as it is being manipulated with untrue facts. We told them that in the past, our info was changed and when we corrected it, the individual just kept changing it back to his drivel. This subject was originally created by Zach Harden (Zscouts) probably 8-10 years ago (check history) who provided the first jpeg of the flag, I believe it is still the one that is there now. He wanted to help us publicize the flag, thought that it was a good idea for Canada. Sunday March 29th. we advised the publisher that we would be setting the record straight once more but that it wouldn't be long before someone would mess it up again. You did not disappoint us, you were even faster than we expected...March 30th., further proving our point. And no, we will not use amendments continually having to justify our statements and leaving the gibberish there. The person responsible has tied in many wonderful links to make it all look authentic but cannot prove his statements because he would be making a fool of himself. He is playing to the strings of one group of people to which there is an advantage to try to discredit the flag, because they fear its unifying force. Yes, it is politically motivated....duh. If the concept of Wikipedia is 'No original research' then it leaves itself open to all kinds of interpretations, true or misleading, and unfortunately is nothing more than just a blog, and we will not participate.Flagman Hank (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you are the real deal. Maybe the rival draft is written by a plagiarist or an agent provocateur. Whatever. Given two accounts, I tend to side with the one that's at least as well written as I could have done at age 14 over the one that goes out of its way to advertise a chip on its shoulder. —Tamfang (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A chip on his shoulder? If you go back to Jonathan Makepeace (Talk: Cdn. Duality Flag), who asks back in 1997, why important information was removed from this site. That's 12 years ago! You don't think that you would get just a little rilied every once in a while to defend your position? Have you ever done anything significant in your life, or are you just a Monday morning quarterback? Are you a moderator for this site and by what self-imposed authority do you give yourself the right to pass judgement on this issue. Since you are the one who rewrote over what was submitted, therefore you have the facts to back everything up, right? So let's see these facts. How do you substantiate the information? Let's not hear fairy stories from you but cold hard facts. You've got none, so what are you doing? Do you think that you are doing Wikipedia a true service? Answer all the questions please.Flagman Hank (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia didn't exist in 1997. Is this a fair sample of your historical awareness and reading comprehension? Makepeace's question was answered within six hours, and he took the advice. This was the passage in question:

The design can also be criticized on the grounds that the inner blue bars depict the imprisonment of Quebec within the outer red bars of Canada. The proportion of blue to red might also remind French-speakers of their minority status within Canada. In addition, some argue that the unaltered Canadian flag already represents French-speaking Canada because white was the colour of the French monarchy and because the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society took the maple leaf as its symbol in 1834.

Makepeace restored the last sentence, with a reference. Do you want to restore the first two?

Having attempted to wipe out all the work of various past contributors, you're not in the best position to complain about removing information.

Whether the things I've done add up to significance, I won't presume to say.

I reverted your changes because a complete rewrite without warning is usually not a sign of good faith; and because your version, even if absolutely accurate, was a mess. Anyone has "authority" to make that judgement. Anyone who disagrees with it is free to revert my reversion. (To discourage private pissing-matches, there is an automatic prohibition against three reversions by the same editor on the same article in a day.)

Had you made incremental changes rather than trying to utterly destroy the rival version, I'd have tried to improve the language rather than reverting. I have no partisan interest here, only a preference for good clear writing. —Tamfang (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I admit that the year 1997 was wrong, read it too fast. I also went back to my earlier emails to try to find out when the flag was first posted but my current computer only goes back to 2003. Nevertheless it doesn't matter about all the other posts, because this is becoming ridiculous and not worth it. Wikipedia is a bloody blog of anyone's opinions, which I thought was for a discussion page, while facts were stated in the article, but not here. Anyone who really knows what they are doing, might as well stay out. I would expect that after I posted the real meaning and origin of the flag, that others could contribute their sightings and experiences with regards to the flag, as there are very many over the 15 years. The story would build up from events, etc. There would be no problem people adding to it in that manner. Instead we get a bunch of stories that go off on tangents and personal opinions that can be countered by other opinions. And as far as not properly written, I disagree. The facts were all there clearly written and it was translated in French so that the French-speaking audience in Canada could also read it. That's what this flag is all about anyway, Canadian duality. Maybe you have a problem with the article being bilingual? I will revert the article back to how I posted it. If you revert it back, you won't hear from me, because Wikipedia would be a joke.

Fine, I won't revert it again; I'm curious to see how soon someone else will. Care to make a small wager?

Bilingualism has its place, certes, mais pourquoi les francophones monolingues liraient-ils la Wikipedia anglaise plutôt que la Wikipédia française? —Tamfang (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I was almost convinced that I made a mistake, mais non, on montre ses vraies couleurs. J'ai essayé de le remettre en place mais ça m'a fait tourner rond et rond. Cela ne vaut plus la peine, parce qu'il y en aura d'autres comme toi. I made my point with the publisher. Have a good life. Salut.

And what are my true colors, selon vous? —Tamfang (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)