You obviously know about the edit summaries, given your edit summary. In the future, look at the history of the article, that way you can see others edit summaries as well. If you do, you will see my summary of: "mainly because I already cleaned up all the bare refs, but also because that's getting a bit tangential".
Basically, while sourced (which is important), the information has several problems.
- First, the referencing does not match the existing referencing style. Per our guideline on such, any new citations need to match the existing style. As mentioned in my summary, I just finished cleaning up what we call bare URL references, which are greatly despised on Wikipedia.
- Secondly, do you not see how tangential this information is? It would be different if the building had been part of the school for its entire history, but it has not. Which takes us to the final point.
- The information has undue weight in the article. Not only is the history of the area not relevant to this article (perhaps in the article on Cedar Mill), but what would be relevant would need to be condensed. It would be like having a history of the development of New York City from a Dutch colony into a metropolis in the article about 9/11. Yes, the development of the city led to the building of the twin towers, but it simply would not belong in an article about 9/11. In this case, what would be appropriate would something such as: "In 1995, OCAC purchased the former Tualatin View School's two-room schoolhouse, which was built in 1926." Plus the cite, but that would basically be it. The rest of the information is just not particularly relevant to OCAC. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm B14709. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Beaverton High School because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! B14709 (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 31 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Secure Digital because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Secure Digital. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)