User talk:67.100.185.234: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:48, 15 May 2007

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Pi Kappa Alpha. 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. Acidskater 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No content was deleted. Former members of an organization --that is, those who are no longer members-- were moved to the end of the list, after those who are still members. That's common sense, not vandalism. Also, a citation needed tag was added. I have since returned and actually provided that citation. Please don't place inappropriate templates on talk pages. Thanks! 67.100.185.234 22:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you did delete content and I had to revert it. You later placed them at the end of the list which was also reverted because it was a pointless edit. I was also the one who provided the source, its not hard to go back and look at the history to prove it as well. Acidskater 03:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't provide the source for Piven which is where the citation was needed. I did. The source for Stewart is unnecessary as the information is not encyclopedic. Stewart is listed with PiKA national as in good standing. The source is therefore misleading if not altogether over-reported wrong information. Furthermore, the edit you've called "pointless" was not pointless in intent, although it has proven to have been unnecessary. Reverting edits that are not vandalism is vandalism. As such, it may be advisable you review WP:Vandalism. 67.100.185.234 05:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the position of the names was not what I put the tag on here for, I put it on here because you deleted their names. I also didn't know you were talking about Priven, I thought you meant Stewart. As for it being encyclopedic, it is. The fact that he dissassociated himself even though the national fraternity recognizes him is part of his biography and is quite encyclopedic. Acidskater 05:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to better familiarize yourself with WP:OWN in order to avoid these sorts of entanglements in the future. Yes, you supplied a reversion (again, a practice for which you demonstrate a zealous enthusiasm not in keeping with the guidelines for same) while I was in the process of a compound edit. More immediately, the template was inappropriate as I previously stated since it is a level-2 template and there is no indication that there was an assumption of good faith. Per the current discussion on the article's talk page, the removal of the information from the article as I did was the correct procedure. In an effort to be especially sensitive to your interest in the article, I have left your reversion of that removal intact and provided a tag link to the discussion. 67.100.185.234 06:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 05:34, 15 May 2007 edit Acidskater (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 3,463 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:48, 15 May 2007 edit undo 67.100.185.234 (talk) re Next edit →
Line 8:		Line 8:

	:::Changing the position of the names was not what I put the tag on here for, I put it on here because you deleted their names. I also didn't know you were talking about Priven, I thought you meant Stewart. As for it being encyclopedic, it is. The fact that he dissassociated himself even though the national fraternity recognizes him is part of his biography and is quite encyclopedic. [[User:Acidskater\|Acidskater]] 05:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)		:::Changing the position of the names was not what I put the tag on here for, I put it on here because you deleted their names. I also didn't know you were talking about Priven, I thought you meant Stewart. As for it being encyclopedic, it is. The fact that he dissassociated himself even though the national fraternity recognizes him is part of his biography and is quite encyclopedic. [[User:Acidskater\|Acidskater]] 05:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

			:::: You may wish to better familiarize yourself with [[WP:OWN]] in order to avoid these sorts of entanglements in the future. Yes, you supplied a reversion (again, a practice for which you demonstrate a zealous enthusiasm not in keeping with the guidelines for same) while I was in the process of a compound edit. More immediately, the template was inappropriate as I previously stated since it is a level-2 template and there is no indication that there was an [[WP:Assume good faith\|assumption of good faith]]. Per the current discussion on the article's talk page, the removal of the information from the article as I did was the correct procedure. In an effort to be especially sensitive to your interest in the article, I have left your reversion of that removal intact and provided a tag link to the discussion. [[User:67.100.185.234\|67.100.185.234]] 06:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)