NaturalMistic

October 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to JD Rossetti, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at JD Rossetti, you may be blocked from editing. The content appears to be adequately sourced. If you want it removed, you need to bring up the subject on the article's Talk page. Otherwise, you run the risk of being blocked for edit warring. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I did provide an explanation of the edits.

The explanation for the edits was provided as: This revision is a content update of current material and removing inappropriate and inaccurate personal harassment material. While the content is cited the information continues to contain character attacks that are inappropriate.

You're engaged in edit warring. You're also one of at least two accounts making these changes, which leaves you open to charges of being a sockpuppet. One of those accounts, Jdrossetti, indicates a clear conflict of interest. Your last edit summary says "as mentioned on the talk page", but you have made no contributions to the talk page, nor has anyone else.

The simple assertion that "the cited information is inappropriate" is not sufficient for it to be removed. It should be self-evident that Wikipedia doesn't permit the subject of a page to decide what does and doesn't belong on the page. We do have quite stringent standards for biographies of living persons, including a noticeboard for bringing inappropriate material to the attention of the community. Please use these well-established processes. If you don't, the most likely thing to happen is that your account will be blocked and the article will be locked down to prevent changes.

I'm telling you this at length because this sort of behavior happens very frequently, and it often ends poorly for the editor in your position. Please, please, believe me: the only chance that you have to get this material removed is to follow the procedures. Raise the matter on the article's Talk page and/or on the noticeboard. Get consensus. The way you've been acting is directly contrary to your own self-interest. You have a potentially solid case; don't spoil it. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you NewEnglandYankee for providing the additional explanation and information on my talk page. Makes a lot more sense with your input.NaturalMistic (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)