Talk:Adam Miller (pioneer)

removing an info box
Nikki could you please explain why you are removing even the simplest info box. Your edit summaries are misleading.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC))
 * No, they're not: the original version used an infobox template to create a double image frame; I simplified it to normal image formatting. You reverted that under the assumption that I didn't know what I had done, and then another contributor used a truly misleading edit summary of "ce" to change and expand the infobox. Since I did know what I had done, your edit was incorrect, and I told you so. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Nikki. Its difficult to have a conversation with an editor who reframes and makes assumptions the way you are here. This is what I actually said, "Your edit summaries are misleading." And as a matter of fact I'm sure you know exactly what you're doing. I am asking that you be clear about what you are doing in the edit summaries you post. You removed a simple info box with other edits. Given the info box wars I keep my eyes on I thought you might have been very aware that you'd removed the info box but wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and suggested you removed the info box by accident since your edit summary ignored possibly the most contentious aspect of you edits. Pigs on the Wing added the double image frame; you reverted back to your preferred version, no info box at all. I reverted  you to the last change. I see no problem with the double frame info box since it allows for expansion, or the simpler info box, but my real concern is less with the  info box than with a lack of transparency - removing the original info box with out explanation with other edits is  not helpful or transparent.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC))