| Revision as of 04:57, 18 September 2006 editKevin B12 (talk | contribs)6,614 editsm →Vandalism, guidelines/polices, and consensus: missing '← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:42, 23 September 2006 edit undo67.162.212.254 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Vandalism== | |||
| Please do not remove comments from user talk pages, such as you did to mine with this edit:. It is considered ]. -- ] 15:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Please do no remove semi-protection tags from articles == | |||
| Please do not remove the semi-protection tag from articles that are semi-protected. Doing so does not remove the protection from the page but does mislead editors. Thanks, ] 02:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandalism, guidelines/polices, and consensus == | |||
| Hi, I happened to notice your issues with ]. First, you really ought to not edit a guideline, then use your edits to the guideline to endorse your changes to articles. Things don't work that way, major changes to guidelines should be well thought out, and with ]. Its very bad form that after you remove the warnings from your talk page and have it reverted to restore the warnings, you go and claim that there's a consensus that warnings ''should'' be removed. (for which that addition was also reverted) Next, the consensus you've claimed for the MOS guideline appears to be disputed. You can't go and say 'see talk page' then have your comments on the talk page say to see other editor's edits to the guideline. Because of the dispute, someone else changing it back to what you don't want is not vandalism, its more of a content dispute. You shouldn't use 'rvv', which is a wiki slang for reverting vandalism to revert in a content dispute. --] 04:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||