Spacejesus5000
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Little Green Footballs has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- The deletion in question does not constitute vandalism as it is a removal of information that is unimportant, misleading, and intended as character assassination against Charles Johnson, the owner of Little Green Footballs.
- Unfortunately, the level 2 warning from me above does not have quite the same wording as the level 1 warning, which notes the problem with the removal of the content is that you provided no explanation. My edit summary, unfortunately, was truncated by the system; this is unfortunate because if it had not been, I noted that the problem with the deletion was the lack of edit summary. Using detailed edit summaries is the best way to ensure that your good faith edits are not reverted by recent changes patrollers or other wikieditors.
Moreover, I now see that the reference provided fails WP:RS and that you were right to have removed it. Note, that I have struck out the warning above. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. — SpikeToronto 05:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the level 2 warning from me above does not have quite the same wording as the level 1 warning, which notes the problem with the removal of the content is that you provided no explanation. My edit summary, unfortunately, was truncated by the system; this is unfortunate because if it had not been, I noted that the problem with the deletion was the lack of edit summary. Using detailed edit summaries is the best way to ensure that your good faith edits are not reverted by recent changes patrollers or other wikieditors.
- UPDATE: With this edit, I removed the material. Note, the use of the edit summary: Alteration and Deletion of Posts: Removing section b/c reference provided fails WP:RS. Its retention would introduce WP:BLP issues. By using a clear, explanatory edit summary, I ensure that recent changes patrollers will not consider it vandalism. Of course, this is true only so long as the edit summary is accurate. Some vandalizing editors will have an edit summary stating that they corrected spelling when in fact they added offensive material, etc. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention. — SpikeToronto 06:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm new to this and did not realize that my editing required an explanation. I will provide such explanations in the future. Thank you for removing the material on citation and source grounds. -SJ
- You may want to participate in the discussion on the article talk page. Also, when you leave comments on a talk page, please remember to sign them by typing four tildes at the end of your text like this: ~~~~. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- The content you removed last night has since been put back up by another user as of this morning. The article now appears to be locked, or protected in some way. The issue remains that the content and its conclusion lacks a reliable source. What is to be done in this case? Participating in the discussion part of the page is futile, as it is overrun by people with names such as "MadKingChucky" which is a direct reference to Charles Johnson, the owner of Little Green Footballs. They hate Charles Johnson, and thrive on stirring up trouble here on the Wikipedia page and elsewhere on the internet. Is there anything that can be done to remove the content placed here by these troublemakers? Spacejesus5000 (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Thank You, SJ
- I have made an attempt on the article’s talk page with this edit. We can only hope that the uninvolved editor who, without malice, included it, did so in error. At this point, it would be inappropriate for me to revert to version 394122234, the correct version, until the RfC is resolved. This is so because some would consider me an involved editor, even though I had never heard of Little Green Footballs until last night when the edit war appeared on my Huggle screen while on recent changes patrol. I do think, however, that you should participate in the discussion. Whichever side of the edit dispute you are on, weighing in on one side or the other helps to build consensus. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- UPDATE: You really should put your comments back in as they help to build consensus. In the straw !vote that Administrators use to deal with editing conflicts, every rational voice matters. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- really? they seemed to me to be NPA violations.Notanipokay (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks a lot for your help, I think I'm getting the hang of how things work here. Spacejesus5000 (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)SpaceJesus5000
- Well I if I can ever help you with anything here, just leave me a query on my talk page. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Unexplained deletions
edit
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Judaism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)