User talk:1MicheleWiki
April 2014[edit]
Hello, I'm Vanamonde93. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Los Angeles Film School without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The above message was a canned template, so it is not entirely accurate; you DID "explain" your edits, but the sources you removed actually backed up the statements in the article. If you wish to remove them, you will have to explain on the talk page why you are doing so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- And you might want to read WP:NLT before you write more edit summaries like the ones you've been writing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am quickly running out of patience with you. Explain how the content has been "debunked" on the talk page. Given the content in question, the sourcing is adequate if not ideal; if you have doubts about it, you may tag it for sourcing. You DO NOT remove sourced information from an article without a very careful explanation, especially after one has been demanded of you. The message you posted on my talk is insufficient, because you are simply repeating your arguments without actually providing evidence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I did some digging around the web. The suit is mentioned in a host of places. Thus, the issue essentially appears to be the broken yahoo news link. So, you are welcome to tag it requesting citations; but at this point, you need sources contradicting those present. Short of that, you are removing nothing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am quickly running out of patience with you. Explain how the content has been "debunked" on the talk page. Given the content in question, the sourcing is adequate if not ideal; if you have doubts about it, you may tag it for sourcing. You DO NOT remove sourced information from an article without a very careful explanation, especially after one has been demanded of you. The message you posted on my talk is insufficient, because you are simply repeating your arguments without actually providing evidence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The school is nationally accredited and has never lost accreditation. Links, sources and phone numbers to the actual sources have been provided several times and deleted by you several times. I have no vested interest other than providing true and accurate information, so I have asked for dispute resolution assistance.
Thank you. -1MicheleWiki
