User talk:Inutero2222

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bruce

3RR
You have now reverted Ashlee Simpson 4 times in 36 hours. Why don't you discuss it on the talk page? --Spartaz Humbug! 15:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing you've ever done on wikipedia is delete the criticism section from the Ashlee Simpson article without ever making a good-faith effort to improve it. I'm giving you a block for excessive reverting, and if you keep this up you will be blocked again. Improve the article, don't just delete things. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Yamla. Deleting is not improving. If you want to make a better section, do that, but a missing section is not a better one, and an article about someone who got 1,000 angry letters written to Marie Claire magazine - hardly a hotbed of controversy usually - without a criticism section is not a better article. If you don't understand that, you won't be unblocked. If you keep deleting the section rather than improving or discussing after waiting out your block, you will probably be blocked again. --AnonEMouse (squeak)

Inutero2222 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is indeed clear cut edit warring when you continue to remove a section against the consensus on a page, especially a useful section like criticism (see WP:CENSORED). While the block may have been premature, the blocking admin is correct. If the section has problems, you can try to fix those problems on this page (as an editor, I've found this infinitely more effective than just removing the whole thing), or, barring that, placing npov or weasel tags. Part Deux 17:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There was little "consensus" on the page. Most of the revisions were made by singular motivated editors. There mere existence of a Criticism section does not mean that section is useful - in this case, that section contains almost zero content that makes it worthwhile. It is not possible to improve the criticism section, because there is no material criticism to be made. Placing npov or weasel tags is not an improvement; it merely posts a big sign up saying, "This encyclopedia is inadequate." My aim is to improve the encyclopedia, not point out its inadequacies. Putting various tags over sections only stalls the improvement of the article. Inutero2222 17:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)