User talk:Kitestate
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Joel Dick. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Dick. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
December 2023
[edit]
Hello, I'm Nagol0929. I noticed that you recently removed content from Robin Martin without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your 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. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for asking. I went through the list of the members of the Ontario legislature and removed excerpts from their political biography that were not sourced, were using adjectives to describe their activities and were generally written to ensure that readers would view them in a positive light Kitestate (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've reverted some of the edits. I left ones where I can see why the puffery was removed, or stuff essentially sourced to themselves. With the ones I reverted, it seemed there was a lot of valid content taken out. I urge you, still, to include an edit summary with all your edits with a brief explanation to others what your reasoning is. A classic sign of vandalism is an editor removing large chunks of an article without any explanation. A hasty vandalism fixer might revert them, if they don't examine things carefully. Happy editing. signed, Willondon (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Please add an edit summary with your edits, to explain why you are making changes. Your edits have been reverted because it was not clear to other editors that they were an improvement. signed, Willondon (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)