| Revision as of 16:20, 28 September 2006 editEvenfiel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,835 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:21, 28 September 2006 edit undoDaddy Kindsoul (talk | contribs)19,776 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Reply== | |||
| What does the old edit have to do with anything?... new information has come to light and been worked into the article (all heavily sourced, with reliable links I might add), which you continue to blank, | |||
| As I explained before; removing edits which fall under ] such as ].. is stated in the ] as an outlined exception to revert limitations and does not count as an actual revert, so I'm not in violation of anything by removing blanking. - ] 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''Sure, I'll report you'' | |||
| For what? As I showed using the official Misplaced Pages policy, I'm not in violation of anything, feel free. It is '''you''' who are violating the editing policy by blanking articles. - ] 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:21, 28 September 2006
Reply
What does the old edit have to do with anything?... new information has come to light and been worked into the article (all heavily sourced, with reliable links I might add), which you continue to blank,
As I explained before; removing edits which fall under simple vandalism such as article blanking.. is stated in the official editing policy as an outlined exception to revert limitations and does not count as an actual revert, so I'm not in violation of anything by removing blanking. - Deathrocker 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll report you
For what? As I showed using the official Misplaced Pages policy, I'm not in violation of anything, feel free. It is you who are violating the editing policy by blanking articles. - Deathrocker 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)