User talk:Antooine

Article blanking
Blanking 2/3rds of an article without discussion because you don't agree with the content could easily be considered vandalism. However, to address your concerns the article has been moved to a more appropriate title. Please address remaining concerns on the article talk page. Thanks -OberRanks (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To put a finer point on it, the Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle explains that having been too bold, you can be reverted, and OberRanks is willing to discuss your objections.
 * As an inexperienced user, you would do well to learn how Wikipedia does business before removing sourced content unilaterally, primarily because it looks like vandalism. Those who commit vandalism are considered vandals and aren't welcome in this project.  We welcome improvements from all editors, including IPs, but those edits have to be helpful and reasoned.  It's hard for me to assume good faith when I see blanking like that even with an edit summary.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Two policies/procedures which you might want to review are "Credentials are irrelevant" and "I just don't like it". When you state that an article "isn't warranted" without backing it up per Wikipedia guidelines (i.e., "why" isn't it warranted and which Wikipedia policy for deletion applies?) or when you advertise your education on a article talk page (as you did here) to justify your views, it usually tends to be viewed negatively.  In any event, welcome to Wikipedia and we could use your inputs.  Just take some of these procedures in mind. -OberRanks (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)