| Revision as of 12:18, 19 November 2010 editTheThomas (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users995 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:35, 2 December 2010 edit undoTheThomas (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users995 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| If you use little ] citations as if they were traffic tickets for driving on the wrong side of 'your' article, I consider you part of the problem. | If you use little ] citations as if they were traffic tickets for driving on the wrong side of 'your' article, I consider you part of the problem. | ||
| If you delete good information |
If you delete good information,rather than source good information, you are doing harm to wikipedia. | ||
Revision as of 00:35, 2 December 2010
So far my largest problem as an editor has been other editors who think they are nannys. That they were hired to keep the little kids from messing things up. Priding themselves on undoing the changes of others for the sake of keeping things tidy.
If a change is made, and you preferred it how it was before, tough! The page has moved on without you, deal with it. --TheThomas (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
It is a collaborative project, if it is unsourced, source it.TheThomas (talk)
Why has it become your wont to destroy new entries that aren't up to your standards? When did you stop attempting to put a better citation--attempting to improve, and not remove, the material?
If you use little WP:con citations as if they were traffic tickets for driving on the wrong side of 'your' article, I consider you part of the problem.
If you delete good information,rather than source good information, you are doing harm to wikipedia.