", a section which i had written most of, if i recall correctly.

conclusion
oldwindybear was using an article plagiarizing major portions from me to serve as verification of his historical credentials, so that he could insert POV into something else written by me — the same guy he's written of above, ""...frankly, your moronic language lends no credance to anything you say regarding this or any other historical subject.""

if that's the case, he'd better get busy deleting ""his"" article! ROFL

please
i haven't the heart to participate in this article anymore, but would somebody please revert the POV at least oldwindybear inserted? i put in my time. surely there's a knowledgeable B&C; freak out there who can at least stand guard for a while, if not improve the article from even its pre-vandalism state.  

note to oldwindybear
before you insert your allegations once again (hopefully somewhere that doesn't break up my signed comment), you may want to consider some immutable truths which i hoped you would have noticed before launching the terribly wrong rant i just removed from within my signed comments. (unlike you, i do not want somebody else's words attributed to me):

the version i quoted above as ""wikipedia"" in the comparison is entirely from 12:03, 20 June 2005 UTC.
you claim to have contributed to the article as  and .
the first edit by  in the article was 20:21, 5 September 2005 UTC.
the first edit by  in the article was 20:06, 4 September 2005 UTC.
therefore, you did not write a single word of the article version in the comparison above.

please take a moment to let that sink in: you did not write a single word of the article version in the comparison above.

you also misapprehend the definition of plagiarism. it has nothing to do with copyright. you used entire blocks of words of other authors (primarily me), and credited yourself as the author. that is plagiarism.

though my initial contributions to the article are readily viewable in the history (and later as another user and several IPs), i want to steer away from the ""i wrote x amount"" aspect, because the article was and is a collaborative effort. the troubling part, not only for me, but also for the owner of the site to which you submitted ""your"" article, is that you used whole blocks from a wikipedia article to which you contributed not a single word, and not only put your name to it, but did not even cite wikipedia as a source.

contrary to the fraudulent hiding of your sources while merely peppering whole blocks of material you stole, i did write the actual unquoted prose in my contributions myself, while citing clearly all of my sources. despite your assertion, the version you stole from stated explicitly, ""Known primarily for robbing banks, he preferred smaller jobs, robbing grocery stores and filling stations at a rate far outpacing the ten to fifteen bank robberies attributed to him and the Barrow gang."" as with everything else in the wikipedia side of the comparison, none of that is your writing. neither, as has been raised and explained several times already, were you the first in this article to raise the issue of legality with regard to the killing of bonnie parker. this has all been explained. please do not bully other users into holding your hand. take a moment. review the article history. review the discussion. slow down and pay attention.

in short, there isn't a leg to stand on if attempting to rebut my charge of plagiarism. you did not arrive on the scene until over 2 months had passed from when the version in the comparison was written. i'll say again: you did not contribute a single syllable to it. yet you lifted whole sections from it, changing very little — in some cases none — and put your name to it. that, sir, is the very definition of plagiarism, and it doesn't matter whether i or any other editor wrote the source material you took; you wrote none of it. the partial copying at the beginning (which you picked out to rebut) was what i already labeled as only ""minor lifting"". be honest. it gets far worse. it gets embarrassingly worse. please don't try to fabricate stories which anybody poring through the history can instantly recognize as vapor. the sad part is that the entire facade of ""your article"" was as an excuse for you to insert even more POV into articles. if you don't understand WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, etc. after so many people have tried explaining them to you, perhaps wikipedia isn't the plac