3,303
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 45:
Line 45: − + +
→Superfluous and Ideological Edits by Bugler
:::Please assume good faith. That is not how deletion discussions work. I am not going to unilateraly delete an article, much less one that has existed for quite some time. Be polite and civil, make good and concise arguments, try to gain support, and if consensus is clearly against you be prepared to let it go. If you do these things, you will not be blocked. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 18:14, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Please assume good faith. That is not how deletion discussions work. I am not going to unilateraly delete an article, much less one that has existed for quite some time. Be polite and civil, make good and concise arguments, try to gain support, and if consensus is clearly against you be prepared to let it go. If you do these things, you will not be blocked. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 18:14, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
==Superfluous and Ideological Edits by Bugler==
==Edits by Bugler==
Mr. Bugler (for lack of better address) I find your removal of content purely ideological and inappropriate with keeping the idea of a fair and accurate encyclopedia. As per Mr. Schlafly's talk page, both an actual example and citation were used. Please explain why you felt that this material deserved deletion, but the 50+ statements WITHOUT example or citation on the Liberal Style page do not. Your inability to communicate your logic and reasoning behind your changes is completely inappropriate to the MO of all wiki pages. You seem to hide behind a facade of creating balance, when in fact, you are removing it. Please explain your actions. If you are indeed in the right, you should have no problem explaining why you did what you did. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 09:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Bugler (for lack of better address) I find your removal of content purely ideological and inappropriate with keeping the idea of a fair and accurate encyclopedia. As per Mr. Schlafly's talk page, both an actual example and citation were used. Please explain why you felt that this material deserved deletion, but the 50+ statements WITHOUT example or citation on the Liberal Style page do not. Your inability to communicate your logic and reasoning behind your changes is completely inappropriate to the MO of all wiki pages. You seem to hide behind a facade of creating balance, when in fact, you are removing it. Please explain your actions. If you are indeed in the right, you should have no problem explaining why you did what you did. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 09:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:AndrasK, you make some assumptions in the title which I have removed. I am not beholden to you that I have to obey your orders. I would also point out that I have not edited Liberal Style and am not responsible for any of the content of that article. If you have a problem with it, contact its authors. With best wishes, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)