User talk:Mountaincaribou

May 2013

Hello, I'm ConcernedVancouverite. I notice that you removed topically-relevant content from Hollyhock Retreat. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Mountaincaribou, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Mountaincaribou! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Hollyhock Retreat, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I made those edits because I hadn't heard back from you regarding my proposal for a week, and have left 90% of things in, so I'm not sure which content has been removed as I am still waiting for you to clarify - which you know as we are discussing it on the Hollyhock Retreat talk page. I am not sure how you can say it is not constructive. I forgot to comment in the edit summary and can do that next time.

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Hollyhock Retreat, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This is untrue. I did only what you did, which is revert an article. Here's the history:

1. You suggested I post my proposed text, which I did, and then edited the article because you didn't reply for a week. You disagreed and reverted, which is fine.

2. You then made other edits, which you did not post on the talk page to discuss (as you had asked me to do). Instead you unilaterally made the changes. I reverted the edit to YOUR original edit, not mine so we could discuss according to your own desired protocol.

3. I did not censor the content. I disagree with the content and am leaving it as before while we discuss. You, however, are using your senior editor (for lack of a better term) position to force your opinions, views, and edits through. This is an abuse of power.

4. Pages can change and sources are sometimes removed. This is not censorship. I am fine with leaving it at your original edit while we discuss but you then added MORE stuff, and when I reverted that (i.e. sources added in the last couple of days) you called it censorship. It is not.

5. I will be posting this on your talk page as well.Mountaincaribou (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)