User talk:24.209.175.115

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Frank Caliendo. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. 04:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Frank Caliendo

Are you kidding me? Someone had the same impressions listed in two different places, right next to each other, and that's all I deleted. I left all of the impersonations that were listed in.

Here is what I did, and I will do it again as soon as I'm done typing this: -Seperated MADtv section from Impersonations section (the impersonations section even states that the impressions he does are not necessarily from MADtv, but also from his stand-up act, among other things) -Added voices to the Impersonations section (see frankcaliendo.com -- there are MANY more in there that are not on the Wikipedia article, most notably from the video archive and the "Frankcaliendo.com Cell Phone Ringers" sections) -Deleted repitition of some impressions, which were also listed in the FOX NFL sunday part, I believe -Left the whole irrelevant thing about breakdancing that some idiot put in, just so this whole deletion battle would never have happened.

Improving an article is HARDLY vandalism. I also want to go through the NBA seasons, year-by-year and correct the NBA Draft listing, as each season's page contains the draft of the next season (i.e. 1989-1990 NBA season mentions 1990 NBA Finals and 1990 NBA Draft, but the draft for that season would have been the 1989 NBA Draft). But now, when I want to make a helpful correction, I'll think against it because people will call it "vandalism" just because they don't want to see their stuff get deleted.

Michael Redd edits

Just letting you know that your recent edits to Michael Redd over the past few days, although made in good faith, have regularly been removed because they failed to cite secondary sources (click preceding link). No information that I or anyone else removed was "valid", as you claimed in your edit summary here. It's only made valid by the presence a secondary source. It is entirely your responsibility to carry the burden of proof, not anyone else's. So your neglect in fully understanding and implementing established procedures led to your own edits being undone; it was not due to anything that anyone else did. Having said that, thanks for improving the article.--Downwards 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is one of many who deletes information without checking it or testing it against anything, whether it is cited or not. I added two nicknames to the article for Michael Redd, yet this user deleted them multiple times without providing an explanation. Both are valid nicknames, but this user deleted them anyway. I did not want to cite them because they were in the fieldbox on the front page, usually a portion of the page that does not take citations. The validity of these could easily be confirmed by going to Google. Beyond that, this user may not have heard them unless he watches Bucks broadcasts or reads the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Therefore, deleting with no reason is uncalled for, and essentially similar to vandalism. 24.209.175.115 00:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to check anything, mate. I'm not the one making the claim, you are - YOU provide the backup. It's your job. Lack of sources is essentially similar to vandalism, not anything I did. Bye!

---

Michael Redd

You can't use Wikipedia as a reference. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---