:::::::Thank you, Andy, for considering my reasoning. The reason for the block of AndyJM wasn't simply his edits to this entry, but his removal of multiple portions of several mathematics entries. I had looked at a few and saw that he was removing good material without explanation and so he was being destructive. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Could you at least unblock BRichtigen? He already kicked off an analysis, but then you blocked him. I will paste the relevant exchange from your talk page:
::Yes, of course, he was removing '''wrong''' information from articles
::#AC is implies the existence of non-Lebesgue-mb sets on an intervall, but isn't equivalent to it.
::#This, he outlined on the corresponding talk page
::#Next removal: ''An irrational number is formally defined to be the limit of a [[Cauchy sequence]] of rational numbers.'' A '''real''' number can be formally defined to be the limit of a [[Cauchy sequence]] of rational numbers. For example, a constant sequence is Cauchy and will lead to a rational number...
::#''involvoling'' -> ''involving'' - no offense there, I presume
::#''The cardinality of such a set would be denoted by the Hebrew letter''<math>\aleph</math>: He was right to remove this, too: <math>\aleph</math> without an index doesn't make much sense...
::#''The continuum is called so because it was the first (and most prominent) [[Continuous|continuous]] set studied by mathematicians.'' What does this mean? Remove it, I'd say...
All his entries were thoughtful and improve CP.
--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:41, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::I disagree with his removals and your recent edits to the Obama article as well as your past history do not instill confidence in what you are saying. Typos can be fixed, but it's wrong to remove information along with the typos. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 16:44, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::It's too late for me to do my own analysis right now, but I will see if I can add something tomorrow. In the meantime, you could do your part to show how AndyJM's edits were bad enough to warrant a five-year ban. We showed that at least one of his removals was entirely justified because it removed ''wrong'' information. I wouldn't be surprised if his other edits were okay, too. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 22:04, 27 November 2008 (EST)
== Latest edit ==