Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
704 bytes added ,  21:26, December 7, 2007
reason for block
Line 102: Line 102:     
I wasn't trying to put the blame on you. I guess, even coming from me, it might have seemed that way, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. You are definitely a very dedicated and perseverant editor... Maybe if I want to be clear and not-indirect I'll just use email next time. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:05, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
 
I wasn't trying to put the blame on you. I guess, even coming from me, it might have seemed that way, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. You are definitely a very dedicated and perseverant editor... Maybe if I want to be clear and not-indirect I'll just use email next time. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:05, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Reason for short block ==
 +
 +
Wikis are ''to contribute information'', not delete it.  In a dozen or so edits this afternoon, nearly every one has been to delete information or links or sources.  For example, you deleted factually correct and informative information from [[young mass murderers]] on a technicality that his victims were injured by gunshots and did not immediately die.  That can be handled by adding a footnote, not by deleting info.  In the case of dead-end links, they can be handled by adding an entry for the link, not by deleting the link.  Your pattern of removal was proceeding so quickly that a block became necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 7 December 2007 (EST)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,204

edits

Navigation menu